Full text of "The Darwinian Theory of the Transmutation of Species"

See other formats

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at |http: //books .google .com/I

^ i'7CO >y. c:

HARVARD COLLEGE LIBRARY

.:]>:],•

bought with thb gift of
Harrison D. Horblit '33

(Kf rf\t/ CLi^iy^C't^

4H.^

IcS

TRANSMUTATION OF SPECIES

EXAMINED.

AjH

CONTENTS.

CHAP.

I. SPECIES AS TREATED BT MB DARWIN . .
II. SPECIES AS DEFINED BT NATURALISTS . .

III. MR Darwin's censure of species

IV. NATURAL SELECTION

Y. THE FUNCTIONS OF NATURAL SELECTION

TI. NATURAL SELECTION OPERATING IN INSTINCT

Tn. NATURAL SELECTION IN THE ARCHITECTURE
HON £ Y - BEE •• .• •. ••

YIII. THE TRANSMUTATION SCHOOL . .

IX. M. TR^MAI^S THEORY

X. STRICTURES ON MR DARWIN^S THEORY . .

XI. THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION

xn. lyell's confutation of transmutation

XIII. THE ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS..

XrV. ORGANIC DISTINCTIONS

XT. THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN

XVI. THE CONCLUSION

APPENDICES

PAOX

• * • •

. • • . .

• * • •

• • • •

1 OF THE

. . . •

. . • .

. . . •

118

. . . .

135

. . . .

164

. • . ■

198

. . . •

231

• . . •

260

• • . •

284

• . . •

330

• • • •

374

THE DARWINIAN THEORY

OF THE

TRANSMUTATION OF SPECIES

EXAMINED BT

A GRADUATE OJ" THE UNIVERSITY OF

CAMBRIDGE.

' Que hand has torely worked ibroiif h the Unirene.'— Dakwi5.

LONDON:
JAMES NISBET & CO., 21, BERNERS STREET.

1867.

[All Righti reserved^]

'0'

1^,1

HARVARD

UNIVERSITY

LIBRARY

FEB 12 1963

■•-r ^

jdiis ciiii.i>it Axr> tnir, ruixTCBi!.

PREFACE.

The following examination of Mr Darwin's 'Origin of
Species ' is intended as a !common-sense answer to a
Theory, which needs only to be carefully compared with
itself to be completely confuted. By a common-sense
answer is meant such a view as any pei^son of ordinary un-
derstanding would take of the question of design, in any
of the more striking instances of contrivance for a special
object, in the works of Nature. In Mr Darwin's Theory
the idea of design in every form of organic life is stead-
fastly denied, and it is asserted that all existing plants and
animals have been produced by slow changes, without any
plan or intention, from some antecedent forms.

To oppose this Theory the following pages have been
written, in a full confidence that the common sense of
mankind cannot be mistaken in this momentous question ;
and that it can only be by an artificial pressure on the
reasoning faculties that any one can be induced to believe
in the accidental evolution of organic beings.

As a more particular illustration of the meaning of a
common-sense answer, take the following passage from
Cicero : * As soon as the animal is born, if it be one that

iv PREFACE.

is to be nourished by milk, almost all the food of the
mother turas to milk, and the young animal, without any
direction, by the pure instinct of nature, immediately seeks
for the teat, and is therefore fed with plenty : That which
makes it evidently appear that there is nothing in this
fortuitous, but the work of a wise and foreseeing Nature,
is that those females which bring forth many young, as
sows and bitches, have many teats, and those which have
a small number have few/ — (De Nat. Deorum, 52.)

This popular illustration of the argument of design is
in fact as convincing as anything we could learn from a
scientific disquisition of the highest order : it is one of the
ten thousand cases to be found in Nature ; and if any one
of them be admitted to be true, it must be fatal to the
Theory of Transmutation.

Should any one be disposed to object that it is pre-
sumptuous, without a panoply of science and ability, to
confront a giant in the physiological kingdom, the answer
would be that when great men leave the beaten track of
aclcnowledged science to wander in the wilderness of
fiction and paradox, they lose much of their redoubtable
attributes, and come down to the level of meaner intellects ;
for, to use the words of Shakspeare, ' See now how wit
may be made a Jack-a-lent, when 'tis upon ill employ-
ment.' — (Merry Wives of Windsor.)

At any rate such has been the conviction of the writer
of these pages, so that he . has entertained a hope that if
there be yet Goliaths in the world, there may be still found
some smooth stones of the brook adequate for the fonnid-
ablc duel.

Mr panvin, in the legitimate walks of science, stands
high among the chief; for to say nothing of other pub-

PREFACE. Y

lications, who, in this generation, has given to the world a
more instructive or a more beautiful book than ' the Re-
searches of the Cruise of the Beagle ' ? A new edition of
the work is advertised, and it is to be hoped that it will
appear without any alterations or additions, to accommo-
date it to the author's new creed. A view of Nature taken
as the production of the Creator's will, can never be made
to harmonize with the blind force of cellular tissues sprout-
ing by accident into all the phenomena of life.

M. Flourens has published a short answer to Mr Dar-
win, contenting himself chiefly with pointing out the abuse
of terms, and the verbal inaccuracies with which the Origin
of Species is argued. The answer, as far as it goes, is very
eflfective, and successfully assails the foundation of the
Theory ; but it is to be regretted that a writer, so well
qualified for the task, should have confined himself chiefiy
to one view of the subject.

The services of Professor Philipps in this cause have
been considerable. Quotations from his valuable publica-
tion, ' Life, its Origin and Succession,' appear in the fol-
lowing chapters.

The whole of this controversy was indeed agitated more
than thirty years ago, when Professor Sedgwick undertook
to confute the author of the 'Vestiges of Creation' in a
celebrated article in the Edinburgh Review, and in another
examination of the Theory of Transmutation in the learned
Professor's prolegomena to the Studies of the University
of Cambridge. The Vestiges never recovered from that
severe concussion ; the book has ever since been considered
an exploded romance by the scientific world.

Mr Darwin places himself in the old battle-field occu-
pied by the Vestiges, maintaining in reality the very

vi PREFACE.

ground held by his predecessor. In the method of man-
aging the argument there is a difference between the
two writers, but in the object of the argument there is
none; so that the force of proof urged by Professor
Sedgwick against the Vestiges, applies in most points
against Mr Darwin's Origin of Species.

In the Edinburgh Review there have been some able
articles on Mr Darwin's Theory. In the April number of
18G3, an article, of which the title is, ' Professor- Huxley
on Man's place in Nature,' is well worthy the careful at-
tention of all those interested in this subject. The Review
quotes an observation of Dugald Stewart : ' From those
representations of human nature which tend to assimilate
to each other the faculties of man and of the brutes, the
transition to atheism is not very wide.'*

This transition is pointed out in the following pages,
and it is shown how with some of the disciples of Trans-
mutation there is no wish to conceal the atheistic import of
the Theory.

The Edinburgh Review remarks ' that it is necessary we
should know to what this so-called Theory of Development
is leading us. If it means that all the phenomena of the
universe are the result of Nature's great progression from
blind force to conscious intellect and will, to which alone
we are to ascribe creative power, that is purely and simply
the scientific form of the doctrine which denies a Creator
altogether, or places the creative mind at an incalculable
distance from its works ' (p. 589).

♦ One of these articles is from the pen of the Duke of Argjll, for a part
of it at least re-appears in * the Reign of Law,' a book destined to celebrity
for its successful opposition to Mr Darwin's Theory, as well as for its
other intrinsic merits.

PREFACE. vii

The question of design in the phenomena of Nature
compels an advocate of that view to assume a position on
the very borders of theology in all the topics under dis-
cussion ; it has however been the aim of the writer to
speak with reserve on the higher aspect of the argument,
and to keep for the latter part of the e)camination a direct
reference to the atheism of Transmutation. There need
be no apprehension of any serious damage likely to accrue
to the received opinions from the disciples of this school,
notwithstanding the positiveness of their doctrine, and its
high pretensions. Common sense will, in the long run,
be too strong for all their efforts, and civilized society will
continue to entertain that indelible faith by which we
believe * that the world was framed by the word of God,
so that the things which are seen were not made of the things
which do appear ; ' a formulary of words which precisely
excludes Mr Darwin's Theory.

The interests of science may, however, suffer detriment
for a season by the agitation of this controversy, and we
may fear that the partisans of Transmutation will be dis-
puting about the interests of their hypothesis, and neglect-
ing the higher pursuit of strict science. When we find
learned men occupied about such questions as ' chains of
linking forms taking a circuitous sweep, and extinct forms
which geological research has not revealed ' (Darwin, 324),
this seems little better than the sterile occupation of blow-
ing soap-bubbles of the imagination, to the neglect of all
the more exact demands of science.

Cuvier has thus expressed himself on this subject : * * The

♦ *L'echelle prctendiie des ctres n'cst qu'uno application erronee k la
totalite de la creation, do ces observations partielles qui n'ont do justesso
qu'autant qu'on les rcstreint dans Ics limitcs ou ellcs ont etc faites, et cetto

viii PREFACE.

pretended chain of beings, as applied to the whole creation,
is but an erroneous application of those partial observa-
tions, which are only true when confined to the limits
within which they were made ; and in my opinion it has
in these modem times impeded, to a degree which can
scarcely be imagined, the progress of natural science/

All this will, however, at last come right ; and certain
stars that have shot madly from their spheres, after a tem-
porary blaze, will pass into the darkness of oblivion. Mr
Darwin's labours in the interests of Transmutation must
either be triumphant, or there will be an end of that
Theory for ever ; for as no one with so good a chance of
success will ever appear again, if he should fail of his
object, Transmutation will have to be carted back to the
family vault of Epicurus, from which it was exhumed, and
which is its congenial and appropriate resting-place.

application, selon moi, a nui, k un degrc quo l*on aurait peine }i imagiuer,
aux progr^s de rhistoire naturelle dans ces demiers temps.* — R^gne Ani-
mal. Preface.

Cuvier, in the dedication of his 'Ossemens Fossiles* to Laplace, mentions
it as a great advantage to himself in his earlier days that by associating
with the geometricians and philosophers of the Institute, he was, to use his
own words, ' penetrated with that severe spirit * of synthesis and method
which regulated his thoughts ia his subsequent labours. It is greatly
owing to that severe spirit that he became so illustrious in the scientific
world. The imagination in him was held in firm restraint, without re-
pressing the quickness of his sagacity and his innate genius. When the
imagination is left at liberty in scientific pursuits, the result is almost
always error and confusion.

* J'ai put surtout m*y p^netrer de cet esprit pcvcre, fruit de Theureuse
association ^tablie dans son sein entre les mathcmaticiens et les natural-
istes.'

CONTENTS.

CHAP.

I. SPECIES AS TREATED BT MB DABWIN . .

II. SPECIES AS DEFINED BT NATUBALISTS . .

III. MB DABWIN's CENSUBB OF SPECIES

IV. NATURAL SELECTION

V. THE FUNCTIONS OF NATUBAL SELECTION

VI. NATUBAL SELECTION OPEBATINO IN INSTINCT

Vn. NATUBAL SELECTION IN THE ABCHITBCTUBE
HON ifi Y ~ BEE ■• •• •• ••

Vni. THE TBANSMUTATION SCHOOL . .

IX. M. TB^MAUX^S THEOBT . .

X. STBICTUBES ON MB DABWIN's THEOBY . .

XI. THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION

Xn. LTELL^S CONFUTATION OF TBANSMUTATION

XIII. THE OBGANIC SIMILABITT OF ANIMALS . .

XTV. OBGANIC DISTINCl'IONS

XV. THE ABGUMENT OF DESIGN

XVI. THE CONCLUSION

APPENDICES

PAOK

• • • •

. . • . •

• • • •

a • a a

• • • •

a • a •

1 OP THE

• • • •

118

• • • •

135

• • • •

164

• • • •

198

• • • •

231

• • • •

260

• • • •

284

• • • •

330

• • • •

374

TRANSMUTATION OF SPECIES

EXAMINED.

CHAPTER I.

SPECIES AS TREATED BY MR DARWIN.

Mr Darwin begins his Introduction to the Origin of
Species by the following words : — * When on board H.M.S.
Beagle as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts
in the distribution of the organic beings inhabiting South
America, and in the geological relations of the present to
the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed
to throw some light on the origin of Species ; that mystery
of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest
philosophers/

Thus are we enabled to fix a date for the first sugges-
tion of that theory which appears in its full maturity in
' the Origin of Species.' The cruise of H.M.S. Beagle
was from the year 1832 to 1836, and Mr Darwin's pub-
lication of his researches in that cruise was in the year
1840.

In the last pages of the Researches is an interesting
passage recommending to young naturalists a journey in

2 SFEOIES AS TBJEATED BT MB DABWIN.

distant countries. After suggesting some reasons for un-
dertaking such a journey, Mr Darwin adds, as a sort of
warning, ' Moreover a number of isolated facts soon be-
come uninteresting, the habit of comparison leads to gener-
alization. On the other hand, as the traveller stays but a
short space of time in each place, his descriptions must
generally consist of mere sketches, instead of detailed ob-
servations. Hence arises, as I have found to my cost, a con-
stant tendency to fill up the gaps of knowledge by inaccurate
and superficial hypotheses ' (608).

These very remarkable words show, by the Author's own
confession, the tendency of his mind at that period ; and
though he has not informed us what those inaccurate and
superficial hypotheses might be, yet as he has told us that
at that time he was pondering on the origin of species,
it seems obvious to connect the hypotheses with the lucu-
brations. Whether we should be justified in so doing may
be determined after a careful examination of the whole
subject.

In a discussion on the origin of species, the first requisite
would have been a definition of Species by the author,
that we might accurately understand his object, and be
sure that we had not misunderstood his meaning. Never
was there a term that more needed a careful definition than
Species, for besides the deep importance of its true signifi-
cation, many definitions of it have been propounded by
many naturalists, so that unless Mr Darwin gives us his
definition, we are left in the dark just in the point where light
was most wanted. In this state the question commences.
Mr DarAvin not only has omitted to define what he intends
by Species, but has made such contradictory statements on
the subject (as we shall presently see), that we can only

SFECmS AS TREATED BY ME DAETFIK 3

endeavour to guess at his meaning by collecting his various
assertions and making as just a comparison of them as the
case will admit.

This therefore must be our first task, to collect Mr Dar-
win's statements on the subject of Species, after which we
may examine the deductions resulting from the statements.

' I look,' says Mr Darwin, ' on the term Species as one
arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of in-
dividuals closely resembling each other, and that it does
not essentially difier from the term Variety, which is given
to less distinct and more fluctuating forms ' (54).

This is the nearest approximation to a definition which
Mr Darwin has given us, though it only amounts to a
negative statement, ' that is, that Species and Variety do not
essentially differ,' which, put in the positive form, will read,
'that Species and Variety are essentially the same,' — a start-
ling proposition without doubt, and begging the whole ques-
tion in limine ; for if this be true/ there is no such thing as
Species, which indeed we are told is a term arbitrarily invent-
ed ; and^then it will follow that nature's barrier against inde-
finite mutability is got rid of, and a clear stage made for Mr
Darwin's theory. As this is, however, the only approach
to a definition with which Mr Darwin has favoured us, we
must observe, that there is enveloped in it a contradiction,
concealed in artful words. ' The term Variety,' we are told,
' is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms ?^ There-
fore Species is more distinct and less fluctuating. If Species
is distinct and does not fluctuate, then it does essentially
differ from Variety, which, as Variety, is not distinct and
does fluctuate. But what does fluctuate mean here?
It means that varieties can interchange and cross, without
barrier, and that species can not. It means, for example,

4 SPECIES AS TREATED BT MB DABWIN.

that all the varieties of the dog can permanently fluctuate,
inter se, making fertile crosses without limit, but that the
species dog and the species fox can not.

Thus in fact Mr Darwin here confirms, as in other pas-
sages, the point he denies.

Take again this statement. ' I look at varieties which
are in any degree more distinct and permanent as steps
leading to more strongly marked and more permanent varie-
ties, and these latter leading to a sub-species, and so to
species^ (54). ' Hence I believe a well-marked variety may
be considered an incipient species.'

The argument is curious, Species does not essentially
differ from Variety, and yet there are varieties of a marked
character differing from their congeners, in having the
quality of greater permanency — * they are more permanent'
— these more permanent varieties are gradually advancing
to the higher dignity of sub-species, and so ultimately to
species where their permanent character Ls fully established.
Well, then, permanency is, by Mr Darwin's own showing,
the attribute of Species, and it is not that of Variety.
Variety changes by slow but steady gradations till it be-
comes Species, and then its mutation is arrested for a long
period of time, and all this is stated to make us understand
that Species and Variety do not essentially differ !

But surely varieties might save themselves all this
trouble, for if they do not essentially differ from that to-
wards which they are progressing, why make a stir for the
change ? and why persuade nature to make alterations for
no conceivable object ?

Again. ' It may be asked, how is it that varieties, which I
have called incipient species, become ultimately converted

SFJSCmS AS TREATED BT MB DABWIN. 5

INTO GOOD AND DISTINCT SPECIES, which in most cases ob-
viously diflfer from each other far more than do the varieties
of the same species ' (64).

Here then, after all, there is such a thing as a good and
distinct species, and varieties differ so from them that a
conversion, a change of character and quality, is to take
place, and the fluctuating Variety is to become * a good and
distinct Species/ If this does not show an essential differ-
ence, how is it to be shown ? and what more could we con-
tend for who are fully convinced of the permanent and irre-
vocable laws of creation ? .

Again, in speaking of the difference between the prim-
rose and the cowsHp, Mr Darwin says : ' We could hardly
wish for better evidence of the two forms being specifically
distinct. On the other hand, they are united by many in-
termediate links, and it is very doubtful whether these
links are hybrids ; and there is a large amount of experi-
mental evidence, showing that they descend from common
parents^ and consequently must be ranked as varieties (52).

Here, in fact, is a tacit acknowledgment of all that na-
turalists have usually advanced on the subject of species.
Creatures that descend from common parents are varieties
of a species. If experiments of a large amount prove this,
it is proved that they are varieties. If the links that unite
them are not hybrids, this is also a proof. Hybridity is
the result of an artificial violation of species, non-hybridity
means fecundity and fertility. The cross between the
Newfoundland and the Greyhound is not hybrid, though
the difference of form is great between them. The cross
between the jackal and the dog is hybrid. All this, tvc
shall find, has often been asserted, and has been held suf-

6 SFUCIES AS TREATED BT MB DABWIN.

ficicnt to establish the definite distinctions of nature. The
vast majority of naturalists have agreed with Mr Darwin
that there is such a thing as good and distinct species.

The real difference between Mr Darwin and other writers
is, that he puts the cart before the horse ; and that when
others say that Species has produced multiplied Variety,
Mr Darwin aflSrms that Variety is on the way to produce
Species. He takes a prophetical view of the subject, deny-
ing that Species differs from Variety at present, though be-
lieving that it will differ in * ages to come ; ' nevertheless, he
also states that good and distinct species do already exist,
and with this confusion and these contradictions we have to
make out as well as we can what Mr Darwin means by
Species.

After all this, it is curious to hear Mr Darwin make this
remark : * To discuss whether such forms are rightly called
species or varieties before any definition of these terms has
been accepted, is vainly to beat the air' (51). There are
more ways of beating the air than one, and this we think
Mr Darwin has taught us ; but why then has not Mr Darwin
himself given us a definition of the thing he is attacking ?
He is writing down Species as an 'arbitrarily invented term,'
and yet he never explains to us what he understands him-
self by the term. It is with him a phantom indeed — now
here, now there — in no tangible form, for he neither describes
to us what it is that he is attacking, nor does he give the
definition of it by any other writer. He may be contra-
dicting Buffon, Cuvier, De Candolle, Von Baer, St Hilaire,
Herder, or others ; we cannot pretend to say what particultff
statement he may object to ; only this we very clearly per-
ceive, that he means by Species an estabhshed barrier of
nature, ordained to prevent confusion, and this is the point

SFUCIJSS AS TREATED BY MB DABWIN. 1

on which we meet him. It is this point which will be dis-
cussed in the next chapter.

Mr Darwin, however, finishes his book w4th a full confi-
dence that he has got rid of Species, * Hereafter/ says he,
' we shall have to treat Species in the same manner as those
naturalists treat Genera, who admit that genera are merely
artificial combinations made for convenience. This may
not be a cheering prospect, but we . shall at least be freed
from the vain search for the undiscovered and undiscover-
able essence of the term Species ' (520).

And yet Mr Darwin has himself discovered that ' good
and distinct Species ' unquestionably exist ! and more than
this, he prophesies that Varieties are advancing in progress
to be converted into Species ; so that if the prospect is not
cheering, it must be least of all so to the author of these
predictions ; we may have to lament the loss of that which
is, and which Mr Darwin also slily admits, but in addition
to this h£ will have to mourn over the loss of that which is
to be. He that seeks to bereave himself of the present,
and anticipates a privation of the future also, is certainly
in a ' cheerless ' plight.

We owe to the Duke of Argyll, in his valuable publica-
tion, ' The Reign of Law,' some deeply interesting remarks
on Humming-birds, as illustrating the law of Species. For
our present purpose it will be suflBcient to state the facts as
the noble author has given them from * Gould's Trochilidse.'

Of the family of Humming Birds four hundred and
thirty species are known, and all these belong to the great
continent of America and its adjacent islands. Within
these limits there is every range of climate, and there are
particular species of Humming Birds adapted to every
region where a flowering vegetation can exist. Mr Gould

8 SPECIES AS TREATED BT ME DABWIN.

observes, on their beautiful appearance : * That the members
of most of the genera have certain parts of their plumage
fantastically decorated, and in many instances most re-
splendent in colour. My own opinion,' says be, * is that this
gorgeous colouring of the Humming Birds has been given
for the mere purpose of ornament, and for no other purpose
of their special adaptation in their mode of life ; in other
words, that ornament and beauty, merely as such, was the
end proposed.'

This of course, if it be a right deduction, is ' absolutely
fatal ' to Mr Darwin's theory ; for he has told us this in so
many words.

Mr Gould proceeds: 'It might be thought by some
persons that four hundred species of birds so diminutive in
size, and of one family, could scarcely be distinguished
from each other, but any one who studies the subject will
soon perceive that such is not the case. Even the females,
which assimilate more closely to each other than the males,
can be separated with perfect certainty ; nay, even a tail-
feather will be sufficient for a person well versed in the
subject, to say to what genus and species the bird from
which it has been taken belongs. I mention this fact to
show that what we designate a species has really dis-
tinctive and constant characters, and in the whole of my
experience, with many thousands of Humming Birds pass-
ing through my hands, I have never observed an instance
of any variation which would lead me to suppose that it
was the result of a union of t.wo species, I write this
without bias, one way or the other, as to the question of
species. I am desirous of representing nature in wonder-
ful ways, as she presents herself to my attention, at the
close of my work, after a period of twelve years of inces-

SFUCIUS AS TREATED BY MB DABWIN, . 9

sant labour, and not less than twenty years of interesting
study.'

The reader will please to observe, that whatever Mr Dar-
win may advance against Species, as a recognized dis-
tinction in nature, he, nevertheless, continually acknow-
ledges it, and founds much of his reasoning on its existence,
at the risk of the most manifest contradiction. Hence he
says : ' It need not be supposed that all varieties, or incipi-
ent species, necessarily attain the rank of species ' (54), an
expression by which we clearly see that he means species
as a resting-place for varieties, as the last step of their pro-
motion. And again : ' On the view that species are only
strongly marked and permanent varieties, and that each
species existed as a variety we can see,' &c., &c. . . (503).
Here Permanency is, without any circumlocution, made
*a characteristic of Species,' and coupUng this with the
other statement that varieties are advanced to the rank of
species, it is plain enough that Mr Darwin feels that to be
a reality which it is the object of his whole book to dis-
prove. How indeed wouldiit be possible for a naturalist
to compose a long treatise on the origin of Species, and not
acknowledge the palpable fact that plants and animals are
arranged in certain permanent partitions, and that owing to
these partitions they always remain the same ?

Now we have seen that Mr Darwin acknowledges both
indirectly and directly that Permanency is a character of
Species, an acknowledgment which of course would be
fatal to his theory ; but Mr Darw in so often deals fatal
blows with his own hands against his own system, without
any apparent suspicion of having done it any injury, that
we need not be surprised at his continuing the controversy
as if nothing unusual had happened.

10 SFUCLES AS TREATED BY MB DABWIN,

It is not our business to reconcile but to state the con-
tradictions we find in the Theory. Now though per-
manency is thus attributed to species, it certainly is not the
author's intention that we should understand this literally ;
for if so, how, according to his Theory, have all existing ani-
mals appeared on the scene ? They are all altered forms
of antecedent species, which have been swept away in the
struggle for life. Species have been changed repeatedly
in the millions of ages of geological time. The nearest
approach therefore that we can make by conjecture to any
elucidation of this confusion is, that species may be con-
sidered permanent in historical, but mutable in geological
time. If the learned author has any other meaning than
this, he has failed to make it intelligible ; but even with this
interpretation the contradiction does not disappear, and the
general result amounts to this, that the grand principle of
the system may be expressed as mutable permanency.

In the mean while we may be amused as well as instructed
with noticing Mr Darwin's opinions on the questions be-
fore us, at the time he wrote his Researches in the cruise
of the Beagle. In speaking of certain birds found in
Terra del Fuego, he says: * When finding, as in this case, any
animal which seems to play so insignificant a part in the
great scheme of nature, one is apt to wonder why a distinct
species should have been created ; but it should always be
recollected that in some other country perhaps it is an
essential member of society, or at some former period may
have been so ' (354). And again: ' Unless we suppose the
same species to have been created in two different coun-
tries, we ought not to expect any closer similarity between
the organic beings on opposite sides of the Andes, than on
shores separated by a broad strait of the sea' (400). And

SPECIES AS TBEATED BY MB DABWIN, 11

once more : ' We see the whole series of animals, which have
been created with peculiar kinds of organization, are con-
fined to certain areas, and we can hardly suppose these
structures are only adaptations to peculiarities of climate
or country, for otherwise animals belonging to a distinct
type, and introduced by man, would not succeed so admir-
ably even to the extermination of the aborigines. On such
ground it does not seem a necessary conclusion that the
extinction of species more than their creation should exclu-
sively depend on the nature (altered by physical changes)
of the country' (212).

Here we have passages acknowledging Species as an
established distinction in animal life, and as created to be
so, for on the subject of creation Mr Darwin speaks in his
Researches with the utmost clearness. In describing the
pit-fall of the lion-ant as seen in South America, he says,
' There can be no doubt but that this predacious larva be-
longs to the same genus with the European kind, though
to a different species. Noiv wliat would the sceptic say to
this ? would any two workmen ever have hit upon so
beautiful, so simple, and yet so artificial a contrivance ? It
cannot be thought so, one hand has surely worked

THROUGH the UNIVERSE ' (527).

These striking words we have ventured to place as the
motto to our title-page.

CHAPTER 11.

SPECIES AS DEFINED BY NATURALISTS.

The theory which is here under consideration has this
essential character, that it denies the fixedness of nature
and invests all living organisms with inherent mutability.
Alterations, transmutation, and * conversion ' into new
states and forms of life, even into those most unlike pre-
viously existing states and forms, have been the destiny of
all beings, and will — in degree at least — be yet their destiny.
Every plant and every animal, and even man himself, have
come to their present actual condition through multiplied
transformations ; and every creature is still progressing
towards some ' improvement,' till, as it is believed, perfec-
tion will be ultimately attained. These changes, which have
always an object of individual improvement, are effected
by matter itself, without the intervention of any controUing
Intellect or Power superior to matter; organisms can
change themselves in the lapse of ages, when such a place
is open for them in existence that it will be for the benefit
of the individual organisms that change should take place.
This change however is not the result of the will and in-
tention of the animals, for even plants have acquired all
their peculiarities and * contrivances ' in this way — the
changes take place by the gradual accumulation of profit-

SPECmS AS DEFINED BY NATURALISTS. 13

able additions or diminutions of quality. It is a result
in all cases, but never a design.

Such being the theory, we meet it with the fact that
in nature there is an insurmountable obstacle to this muta-
bility, and that in consequence of it no such changes can
take place, nor ever have taken place — and this obstacle is
usually known by the term * Species.' It is however to be
remembered that the term is an invention of the human
intellect, an abstract idea based on long-continued observa-
tions of nature — but that the word Species has no natural
existence. This is a point not to be forgotten, for I find
that Mr^Darwin makes his attacks on Species as if we be-
lieved that this ideal classification had an independent and
real existence, so that if he can invalidate the term Species
he seems to think he has got rid of his most formidable
antagonist, or at any rate he hopes that we may think so.
The term may stand for all that it is worth — and certainly
the day has not yet come for abandoning it ; in the mean
time this is an unalterable fact, that there is in nature a
barrier preventing this imaginary mutabiHty, by an arrange-
ment which is known to exist in organized beings, and this
arrangement, by general consent of physiologists, constitutes
the divisions and boundaries of species.

This is the question now for our inquiry. We have
seen what Mr Darwin has said on the subject ; we will now
adduce the opinions of other writers on Natural History.

M. Flourens says : ' II y a deux caract^res qui font juger de
Tesp^e, lafonne, ou la ressemblance, et le/econdite. Mais
il y a longtemps que j'ai fait voir que la ressemblance, la
forme, n'est qu'un caractfere accessoire. L'espfece est d'une
fi^ondit^ continue, ce qui prouve qu'elles ne sont pas sorties
de Tespfece, qu'elle ne sont que Tespfece, qui s'est diverse-

14 SPECIES AS DEFINED BY NATURALISTS.

ment nuanc^e. Au contraire les espfeces sont distinctes
entre elles, par la raison decisive, qu'il n y a entre elles
qu une fecondM bomee. J'ai d^ja dit cela, mais je ne saurais
trop le redire ' (34).

These very obvious truths M. Flourens confirms by a
quotation from Buffon : ' The comparison of the resemblance
of individuals is but an accessory idea, and often independ-
ent of the first — the constant succession of individuals by
generation — for the ass is more like the horse than the water-
spaniel is to the greyhound, and nevertheless the water-
spaniel and the greyhound are but one species, «ince they
produce together individuals which can themselves produce
others in the same way, whereas the ass and the horse are
certainly of different species, since they produce together
only faulty and sterile animals.*

This brief explanation is to be found more at length in
other passages of Buffbn's Natural History, and one of these
will be found in the note.f The whole subject is lucidly
stated in Miiller's Elements of Physiology. J We are
compelled, for brevity's sake, to refer the reader to the work
itself.

Thus then the matter stands ; the mixture of specia

• Buffon, Histoiro de Tane.

•j- * D'ailleurs il y a encore un avantage pour reconnoitre les espdces
d*animauz, et pour les designer les uns des autres, c'est qu*on doit regarder
corome la mcme esp^ce celle qui, au moyen de la copulation, se perpetne,
et conserve la similitude de cetto espt^ce, eiconime des esp^ces differentes
celles qui par les m^roes moyens ne peuvent rien produire ensemble ; de
sorte qu*un renard sera une espece differente d'un cbien, si en effet par la
copulation d*un m&le et d^une femellc de ces deux espcces il ne resulte
rien ; et quand raeme il en rcsulterait un animal mi-parti, une espece de
mulct, comme ce mulet ne produirait rien, cela suffiroit pour ctablir que
le renard et le cbien ne seroient pas de la mcme espece, puisque nous
avons suppose que pour constituer une espece, il/alloit une production con-
tinue, perpetuelle, invariable, semblable en un mot k cctte des autres ani-
maux * (x. 285).

X Vol. II. p. 1G61.

SPECIES AS DEFINED BY NATURALISTS. 15

produces a hybrid progeny when there is any product at
all, and this hybrid progeny cannot with its hybrid con-
geners have any descendants. The union of the dog and
jackal, like that of the horse and ass, may produce a hybrid
or mule, but these mule-animals united with other mules
are sterile. The hybrid dog-jackal, with either dog or
jackal, that is, with either side of the pure races, may
have progeny ; and, supposing the father to be a dog, the
progeny of the second experiment will approach much
nearer the dog than the progeny of the first experiment.
This, repeated in the next generation by a dog-father, will
produce an animal all but a dog, and in the fourth genera-
tion the result will be a pure dog, all trace of mixture hav-
ing disappeared. Mules, amongst themselves, are always
unproductive ; and, as the mule is the attempt at a new
animal, that attempt fails, for the artificial breed cannot be
continued.

Animals of the same species, but distinguished as a race,
however dissimilar in appearance, such as the blood-
hound, and water-dog, are prolific in their descendants, the
descendants will be fertile mongrels, but not hybrids.

All the races of dogs are fertile with one another, and
their fecundity continues in their descendants, whatever the
mixture may have been. Yet these mongrels continue to
be dogs ; no new animal is formed, and the boundaries of
this which we call species are not transgressed. We can-
not make a race of new animals.

Cuvier has remarked: 'La nature a soin d'empecher
Talteration des espfeces, qui pourroit rdsulter de leur
m^ange, par I'aversion mutuelle qu'elle leur a donn^e : il
faut toutes les ruses, toute la contrainte de Thomme pour
faire contracter ces unions, meme aux espfeces qui se

16 SPECIES AS DEFINED BY NATURALISTS.

ressemblent le plus aussi ne voyons nous pas dans

nos bois d'individus interm^diaires entre le lifevre et le
lapin, entre le cerf et le daim, entre la marte et la fouine?'
(Discours preliminaire, p. 76.)

This is confirmed by Lyell, in an interesting passage
specially in reference to the vegetable kingdom, in his
Principles of Geology, third edition (ii. 390).

The celebrated John Hunter has observed that the true
distinction of species must ultimately be gathered from
their incapacity of propagating with each other, and pro-
ducing offspring capable of again continuing itself; and
Lyell, in adducing his testimony, observes that no proof has
been obtained that a true hybrid race can be perpetuated.

De CandoUe, after discussing the subject, concludes with
these words : * I see, then, that there exist in organized
beings permanent differences which cannot be referred to
any one of the actual causes of variation, and these differ-
ences are what constitute species.' (Essai el^mentaire.)

The following passage in Lyell's Geology (at least in the
earlier editions) is well worthy of observation ; for though
written against Lamarck, the true founder of Mr Darwin's
theory, and several years before * The Origin of Species * was
published, it is, in fact, a home-thrust at Mr Darwin.

' I may remark that if it could be shown that a single
permanent species had ever been produced by hybridity
(of which there is no satisfactory proof), it might certainly
have lent some countenance to the notions of the ancients
respecting the gradual deterioration of created things, but
none whatever to Lamarck's (Darwin's) theory of their pro-
gressive perfectibility, for observations have hitherto shown
that there is a tendency in mule animals and plants to de-
generate in organization ' (ii. 33G).

SPECIES AS DEFINED BY NATURALISTS. 17

The sentiments uttered by other physiologists are re-
jated by Lawrence,* who quotes in confirmation the
ords of Cuvier. * I have carefully examined the figures
' animals and birds engraven on the numerous obelisks
rought from Egypt to ancient Rome. In the general cha-
Lcter, which is all that can have been preserved, these
ipresentations perfectly resemble the originals, as we now
le them. My learned colleague, M. Geoffroy St Hilaire,
Jlected numerous mummies of animals from the sepid-
ires and temples of Upper and Lower Egypt. He brought
vay cats, ibises, birds of prey, dogs, monkeys, crocodiles,
id an ox's head, embalmed. There is no more difference
3tween these relics and the animals we are now acquainted
ith, than between the human mummies and the skele-
►ns of the present day.' f

Lawrence concludes his disquisition on the subject thus :
We may conclude, then, from a general review of the p re-
ading facts, that nature has ])rovided, by the insurmount-
)le barrier of instinctive aversion, of sterility in the hy-
rid offspring, and in the allotment of species to different
irts of the earth, against any corruption or change of
lecies in wild animals. We must therefore admit, for all
le species which we know at present, as sufficiently dis-
net and constant, a distinct origin and common date '

:oo).

With all this evidence we are enabled to see that in the
alities of nature the system of constant mutation can
ive no place, and that it must be restricted to the region
* the imagination where it had its origin. We shall see
•e long that Mr Darwin virtually accedes to the general

♦ See Lawrence's Lectures on Physiology (2G1), first edition.

t Cavier*s Recherches sur les ossemens (Discours preliminaire, p. 71).

18 SPECIES AS DEFINED BY NATURAUSTS,

deductions of other naturalists on this subject, by the con-
cessions which he makes ; indeed other writers, who are
partially of his way of thinking, and who even more confi-
dently reject the idea of creation, cannot but admit the
actual fixedness of the forms of life upon the earth, M.
Pouchet, a bold advocate of spontaneous generation for the
origin of vertebrated life and a eulogist both of Lamarck
and Darwin, acknowledges that it is only by supposing an
immense period of time for "the process that we can be-
lieve in a change of species. * For us,' says he, ' if species
be fixed, it is in the manner of the sun — ^that is to say, we
cannot perceive the movement, so little are we in the ac-
count of time. It requires thousands of ages perhaps to
establish a displacement of the sun or a transformation of
a species ' (193). In other words, there is no evidence to
be had of such a transformation ; we are to imagine thsre-
fore that it may be.

M. Pouchet has established his position* by well-selected
and convincing evidence of facts, and concludes his examin-
ation of the subject with these words :

'Du moins reste-t-il vrai et prouv(5 que, quand deux
races trfes-differentes s'unissent, il ne faut esperer rien de
bon non plus que rien de durable do leur union ' (1 56).

Now this we may say is the evidence of an opponent
and therefore doubly valuable ; for if an advocate of muta-
bility of species can thus go out of the way to show the
difficulty of mixing races, with any hope of a durable
progeny, much less can he pretend to change species. As
long as the learned author keeps within the region of facts
and the known history of nature he tells us the real truth ;
but when he gets into solar cycles and manwantaras of

• * Un typo moycn ne peut cxister par lui*-m6me.*

SPECIES AS DEFINED BY NATURALISTS. 19

eastern mythical time, we then find ourselves amongst 'first
organisms * coming into life by spontaneous genesis, and
primary species arranging themselves for future adventures
in multiplied transformations.

This then is the point we aim at, the existence of an
* in surmoim table barrier ' in nature to a system of indefinite
change of form and character in organized beings. The
continued fecundity of true species and the sterility of
hybrids is this barrier, — a fact generally admitted by na-
turalists.

Such are the observations and deductions of learned phy-
siologists ; but the question is nevertheless one of common
observation, and would be received in the commonly ac-
cepted view of the case by any one whose occupations led
him to an ordinary acquaintance with plants or animals.
The grazier and the market-gardener would confirm by
their testimony the fact of the constancy of species, for the
evidence to guide their judgment in the question is patent
and notorious. That the popular view was also that of an-
tiquity, we may see in Lucretius.

* Nam quod multa fuere in terris semina rerum
Tempore quo primum tellus animalia fudit.
Nil tamen est signi mixtas potuisse creari
Inter se pecudes compactaque membra an im an turn,
Propterea quia quae de terris nunc quoque abundant
Herbarum genera ac fruges arbustaque laeta,
Non tamen inter se possunt complexa creari,
Sed res quaeque suo ritu procedit, et omnes
Foedere naturae certo discrimine servant.' (v. 916.)

A much more ancient testimony than that of Lucretius
gives us the same information.

20 SPECIES AS DEFINED BY NATURALISTS.

' And God made the beast of the earth after his kind,
and cattle after their kind, and every living thuig that
creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that
it was good. — And the earth brought forth grass, and herb
yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit,
whose seed is in itself, after his kind : and God saw that
it was good.'

This, in a more antique form of primitive simplicity, ex-
presses, in substance, the doctrine which Cuvier, and
Agassiz, and other celebrated naturalists have laboured to
establish.

The following, in the ' Principles of Geology,' is Sir C.
Lyell's recapitulation of his inquiry.

* For the reason therefore detailed in this and the two
preceding chapters, we may draw the following inferences
in regard to the reality of species in nature.

* 1 . That there is a capacity in all species to accommodate
themselves, to a certain extent, to a change of external cir-
cumstances, this extent varying greatly, according to the
species.

' 2. When the change of situation which they can endure
is great, it is usually attended by some modification of the
form, colour, size, structure, or other particulars; but
the mutations thus superinduced are governed by constant
laws, and the capability of so varying form part of the spe-
cific character.

* 3. Some acquired peculiarities of form, structure, and
instinct are transmissible to the offspring ; but these con-
sist of such quahties and attributes only as are intimately
related to the natural wants and propensities of the species.

'4. The entire variation from the original type, which any
given kind of change can produce, may usually be effected

SPECIES AS DEFINED BY NATURALISTS, 21

in a brief period of time, after which no further deviation
can be attained by continuing to alter the circumstances,
though ever so gradually : indefinite divergence, either in
the way of improvement or deviation, being prevented,
and the least possible excess beyond the definite limits
being fatal to the existence of the individual.'

[This 4th article^ is as perfect a denial of the theory of
transmutation as words can express.]

* 5. The intermixture of the distinct species is guarded
against by the aversion of the individuals composing them
to sexual union, or by the sterility of the male offspring.
It does not appear that true hybrid races have ever been
perpetuated for several generations, even by the assistance
of man ; for the cases usually cited relate to the crossing
of mules with individuals of pure species, and not to the
intermixture of hybrid with hybrid.

*6. From the above considerations, it appears that species
have a real existence in nature; and that each was en-
dowed, at the time of its creation, with the attributes and
organization by which it is now distinguished.' (iii. cap.

4.)

This deliberate decision on the important question of
species, whilst it gives a correct and luminous exposition of
the facts of nature, pronounces sentence of condemnation
on the system of Lamarck, which is the same thing as
passing censure on Mr Darwin's theory. These were the
sentiments of Sir C. Lyell in the earlier editions of his
Principles of Geology, but in the edition of that work now
in the coarse of publication, and of which at present but
one volume has appeared, it is to be presumed that other
opinions will be expressed, and that the passage just
quoted will be cancelled.

22 SPECIES AS DEFINED BY NATURALISTS.

As Sir C. Lyell has, in his Antiquity of Man, professed
himself a disciple of Transmutation, his views in every
question on which that theory depends must have under-
gone a change, and he must be considered now a teacher
of a system opposite to that which he has hitherto upheld ;
and more than that, a champion of a cause which for more
than thirty years of his life he vigorously opposed. What-
ever may be the merit of his new opinions, the important
point with those who might be disposed to listen to his in-
structions will be, that his present opinions are new, and
that the renowned interpreter of Geology, to whom we
have been accustomed to look for the soundest views of
that noble branch of science, has disappeared, to wander iu
paths where we cannot follow him.

In the whole region of thought nothing can be further
apart than the general doctrine of the Principles of Geology
from the sentiments professed in the Antiquity of Man.
That Sir C. Lyell should have passed over from the high
vantage-ground he has so long enjoyed to the visionary
school of Lamarck, is a mental metamorphosis as complete
as the transition from one nature to another ; so that the
Transmutationists may boast, that however deficient may
be their proofs of any corporeal transformation, they have,
in this their illustrious convert, an undeniable specimen
of intellectual transmutation.

CHAPTER III.
MR Darwin's censure op species.

We have seen Mr Darwin's statement of species, and
have considered also the opinions of several celebrated
naturalists on the same subject ; we now have to examine
Mr Darwin's arguments for opposing the received opinion.

His first exception to the acknowledgment of species is
based on the great difficulty which he affirms there is in
determining correctly the species of several plants, ' there are
genera in which the species present an inordinate amount
of variation ; and hardly two naturalists can agree which
forms to rank as species, and which as varieties. We may
instance Rubus, Rosa, and Hieracium among plants, and se-
veral genera of insects ' (48). On this theme — the perplexity
of the naturalists — he much enlarges : ' Mr H. C. Watson
has marked forme 182 British plants, which are considered
as varieties, but which nevertheless have been ranked by
botunists as species. Under genera Mr Babington gives
251 species, whereas Mr Bentham gives only 112, a diflfer-
ence of 139 doubtful forms.' Well, let it be so. Let
these learned gentlemen and a great many more puzzle
themselves in framing their decrees about the species of
plants ; but are we then to come to this conclusion, that
species has no real existence in nature because Messrs H.

24 MR DARWIN'S CENSURE OF SPECIES.

C. Watson and Babington have bewildered themselves in
endeavouring to make proper distinctions ? and in an ab-
struse subject, because there are many opinions and con-
siderable disagreement, shall we get rid of the diflSculty by
boldly affirming that the subject itself is altogether ideal,-
and therefore may be dismissed as imaginary ?

By this mode of argument we might clear the stage of
many hard questions in physics, and many disputes in
chemistry and geology might thus be very conveniently
settled. Great is the difference of opinion that still exists
in assigning the proper office to the pancreas in the internal
structure of animals, and various have been the conjectures
on the object of this organ and of the qualities of its secre-
tion. It is a controversy not yet settled ; and so much
has been said on the subject by many English and conti-
nental anatomists, that the history of this discussion would
fill a large volume. We might, however, compose all this
learned agitation by denying that the pancreas had any
functions to perform, and might even assign it a place in
the animal economy amongst unoccupied appendages ; and
putting it on the shelf as ' an idle member,' might decree
that it did once belong to some parent-form, from which
other animals derived their origin, useful, and indeed ne-
cessary, to that parent-form, but no longer needed by its
descendants. This would answer two purposes — it would
furnish an analogy for the discarding of species, and serve
as an auxiliary to the theory of transmutation.

Mr Darwin does not however fail to make the most of
the ignorance of the naturalists, by again and again remind-
ing us of it. * It cannot be disputed that many forms,
considered by highly competent judges as varieties, have so
perfectly the character of species that they are ranked by

MR DARWIN'S CENSURE OF SPECIES. 25

other highly competent judges as good and true species
(51). No clear line of demarcation has as yet been drawn
between species and sub-species (53). The amount of
difference considered necessary to give to two forms the rank
of species is quite indefinite (61), &c., &c., &c. But all
such passages as these only prove that the naturalists have
much to learn, that the art of accurate division is a very
subtile and elaborate one, and that in the extremely deli-
cate texture of plants (for it is to them that Mr Darwin
refers) it requires an experienced eye, a long acquaintance
with the subject, and much sagacity of obsei^^ation, to come
to a right decision — that these decisions in many cases are
only designed to be temporary ; and as the field of botani-
cal discovery enlarges, by a more perfect acquaintance with
all regions of the earth, much yet will have to be re-cast
and re-arranged, when the importation of additional know-
ledge into the hive of science shall call for the renewed
labours of the workmen. Let, then, Mr Darwin manipulate
the word ' species ' as he likes, let him sometimes discard
it and sometimes make use of it, and let him make the
most he can of the perplexities of the physiologists, — we ap-
peal from terms and words to nature itself, and there we
say the great barrier to his system, insurmountable as the

* flammantia moenia mundi,' is full before our eyes, and
cannot be removed.

The substance of these remarks has been much better
expressed by Lyell, who, in censuring Lamarck, has at the
same time censured, by anticipation, Mr Darwin himself.

* Lamarck,' says he, * has indeed attempted to raise an argu-
ment in favour of his system, out of the very confusion
which has arisen in the study of some orders of animals and
plants,in consequence of the slight shades of difference which

26 MICDARWIirS CENSURE OF SPECIES.

separate the new species discovered within the last half-
century.

' That the embarrassment of those who attempt to
classify and distinguish the new acquisitions, poured iu
such multitudes into our museums, should increase, with
the augmentation of their number, is quite natural ; since
to obviate this it is not enough that our powers of discrimi-
nation should keep pace with the increase of the objects,
but we ought to possess greater opportunities of studying
each animal and plant in all stages of its growth, and to
know perfectly 'their history, their habits, and physiological
characters, throughout several generations. For, in propor-
tion as the series of known animals grows more complete,
none can doubt that there is a nearer approximation to a
graduated scale of being, and thus the most closely allied
species will be found to possess a greater number of charac-
ters in common ' (ii. 348).

If, however, a longer time and further information should
be required for a more correct classification, and if some
licence for conjecture should be demanded, Mr Darwin
has his objections: 'In very many cases one form is
ranked as a variety of another, not because the interme-
diate links have actually been found, but because analogy
leads the observer to suppose either that they do now
somewhere exist, or may formerly have existed: and here a
wide door for the entry of doubt and conjecture is opened '
(49). Such an objection from this quarter is truly sur-
prising, from one who for himself has opened so much
wider a door for whole hosts of doubt and conjecture to
pass through into the realms of chaos and primeval night.
' If my theory be true,' says Mr Darwin, ' it is indisputable
that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long

MR DARWIN S CENSURE OF SPECIES, 27

periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than,
the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present
day ; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, pe-
riods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures*
(333).

This is * indisputable,' that is, it cannot be disputed :
though the learned author himself says that those periods
of time are ' quite unknown,' swarms of living creature's of
forms unknown, and beyond our imagination, for thousands
of millions of ages have existed, though not a shred or a
vestige of one of them is anywhere to be found — and yet, if
a brother naturalist ventures to conjecture that there may
have existed some missing links in a species of a flower,
he is rebuked for opening a door to conjecture ! Mr Dar-
win had better measure the width of his own door before
he complains of the doors of his neighbours.

In the eighth chapter we have the question of sterility
discussed, and, as it will be seen, with ingenious manage-
ment. First, however, it will be important to notice the con-
cessions made to the question of sterility of hybrid animals :
' I doubt whether any case of a perfectly fertile hybrid ani-
mal can be considered as thoroughly well authenticated '
(274). It is diflBcult, 'perhaps impossible, to bring for-
ward one case of the hybrid offspring of two animals,
clearly distinct, being itself perfectly fertile ' (27). I do
not know of any thoroughly well-authenticated case of
a perfectly fertile hybrid animal ' (275). ' Mr Hewitt, who
has had great experience in hybridizing gallinaceous birds,
informs me that the early death of the embryo is a very
frequent cause of sterility in first crosses ' (286).

Here then a limit exists, and its existence is frankly ac-
knowledged, beyond which the commixture of animals is

28 MR DARWIN'S CENSURE OF SPECIES.

found to be impossible. To many it would appear that
these concessions render all further dispute unnecessary.
By Mr Darwin's theory, all animals have sprung from
one parent, they are all descended from one origin : how
comes it then that the progeny of this one stock di-
vided itself into thousands of different families, and
with such rigorous excommunication of their brothers and
cousins, that at last a union between their descendants,
marked by constant sterility, rendered any confusion of
the families impossible? We see an ordained law, and
leave the matter there with the wisdom of the lawgiver;
WBy basing a deduction of common sense on a palpable
fact, affirm that sterility is a visible proof of a foreordained
separation, — a very manifest design, if ever there was one.
Mr Darwin denies the design or the intention, but acknow-
ledges the fact, without the least attempting to account
for it, thereby fabricating for himself inexplicable diffi-
culties ; but till he can give us a satisfactory explanation of
these difficulties, created by his own theory, we must de-
cline to accept his exegesis of the mysteries of nature.

That he himself has but a faint confidence in his own
exegesis, we may gather from the following words: *It
must be confessed that we cannot understand, except hy
vague hypothesiSj several facts with respect to the sterility
of hybrids. Nor do I pretend that the foregoing remarks
go to the root of the matter : no explanation is offered why
an organism, when placed under unnatural conditions, is
rendered sterile (288).

If this explanation could have been given, Mr Darwin
would indeed have achieved mighty things, for what would
this be but to explain the profoundest of nature's mysteries,
that secret, the key of which is with its Author, never to

MR DARWIN'S CENSURE OF SPECIES. 29

be committed to the hands of man. That this theory in-
deed is presented to us as if it were itself the key, we are
well aware, and so it ought to be, if its pretensions of
teaching * the Origin of Species ' could be sustained ; but
that it continually fails in doing this is manifest even by
the acknowledgments of its inventor, of which the above
sentence is a specimen ; we shall presently see that there
are other occasions in which he confesses himself hope-
lessly obstructed in the labyrinth of error.

' No explanation is offered,' says Mr Darwin, * why an
organism, when placed under unnatural conditions^ is ren-
dered sterile.' In these words lurks the unintended avowal
that there are certain pre-existing conditions of nature,
that nature has prescribed certain organisms to carry out
certain functions, and that an attempt to divert the func-
tions into another channel is a failure. This ought not to
be acknowledged by an exponent of the theory before us,
which repudiates all idea of design, and holds that things
are always on the move to better themselves, in a slo\Hbut
sure advance towards perfection. We indeed * hold that
in varied schemes of life, and to realize them, organisms
have been prepared, and fitted together in one harmonious
whole, to carry out the object for which they were de-
signed, and that they have thus been endowed with life.
And this system of design and execution we call nature,

♦ * Fixed forms, and which are perpetuated by generations, distinguish
their species, determine the complication of secondary functions proper to
each of them, and assign to them the part [le role) which they have to
sustain in the harmony of the universe. These forms do not produce nor
change themselves. Life supposes their existence ; it cannot be kindled
except in organizations already prepared for it, and the most profound
meditations, as well as the most delicate observations, only bring us at
last to the mystery of pre-existent germs.' — Cuvier, Regno Animal, In-
trodoction, p. 17.

30 MR DARWIN'S CENSURE OF SPECIES.

and when we talk of the laws of nature, we mean that law
is the expression of prescience, intention, and power ; and
we have therefore a very clear signification of our thoughts
when we say that things are in a natural or unnatural posi-
tion. But Mr Darwin entertains none of these views.
His nature Ls Natural Selection, originating in no law, and
owning no law ; it is only a long-sustained experiment, an
empirical condition of things trying all correctives, and
testing all suggestions, to reach at last the elixir vita of
a future perfection. Tf the learned author could always
remember this, he would not so frequently make use of
expressions which can have no logical standing in his
system.

' On the theory of Natural Selection,' says our author,
' sterility is especially important, inasmuch as the sterility of
hybrids could not possibly be of any advantage to tlieniy and
therefore could not have been acquired by the continued
preservation of successive profitable degrees of sterility '
(26$). This very whimsical decision, almost the strangest
that ever has been ofiFered as a tribute to science, is capa-
ble perhaps of more than one interpretation : but we would
ask, if sterility did not originate by Natural Selection, by
what other means has it been introduced ? We have seen
that Mr Danvin acknowledges the fact; but he here cuts
off from himself the only explanation which he had to offer
in his theory. For Natural Selection can do anything, and
has indeed done almost everything that ever has been
done in nature, — why then has it not been allowed to work
in this particular instance ? This, at first sight, might seem
inexplicable ; but when we remember that the rule of steril-
ity is not for individuals alone, but for divisions, distinc-
tions, and groups of animals, with an obvious intention to

MR DARWIN'S CENSSURE OF SPECIES. 31

keep them apart, and therefore argues an intelligent de-
sign ; and that, on the contrary. Natural Selection acts only
for individuals, caring nothing at all for the benefit of
groups and classes, is essentially a selfish individual princi-
ple, and knows nothing of a general plan, we can under-
stand how it is that this grand functionary has kept clear
of this business.

But again we ask, whence then originated sterility of
unions not intended by nature ? And again we ask, how
did animals, all in the beginning one family, brother and
sister, when separating themselves into different forms,
and genera, and species, acquire this quality — ^that is, this
quality of fecundity of the species and sterility out of the
boundaries of the species ? Natural Selection did not help
them, because that wise one saw that sterility could not
possibly be for their benefit — and yet sterility is the law !
Perhaps the animals themselves acted on this occasion on
their own view of the matter, and agreed to make the law,
without consulting Natural Selection, and have thus adopted
a system which has been of no service to them. It must,
however, have been a very popular idea with both plants
and animals, seeing how generally it has been adopted.

But how does Mr Darwin know that the sterility of hy-
brids could not possibly have been an advantage to the
animals ? The hybrid that is sterile has not made itself so,
but is sterile as a joint-product of two parents. The hybrid
can only take the nature he has, and the organization fur-
nished by his parents. The mule has not made himself
sterile, nor can he alter his condition — sterility originates
not with the hybrid, but with the parents ; hybridity is a
negative state produced by the union of male and female
not fitted for union — and it is of the utmost possible bene-

32 MR DARWIN'S CENSURE OF SPECIES.

fit to animals in general, that this sterility is the result of
improper unions, as it averts general confusion, and sus-
tains the unity of nature's design.

In this matter, however, Mr Darwin has forgotten him-
self; for though he thus affirms with such confidence that
steriUty * could not possibly be of advantage to animals,'
yet only a few pages earlier, in the 7 th chapter, he had as
plainly laid it down that the honey-bee workers* have made
themselves sterile by Natural Selection, for the benefit of
their society ! ! ! If Natural Selection has acted thus in
one conspicuous example — ^if sterility has in that case been
produced by Natural Selection — how, we ask, is it quite
impossible that it should not have been introduced by the
same agency, wherever we see it prevail ?

Surely this is a slip of the memory, and a very palpable
one. We need not say that we happen to agree with Mr
Darwin, and are quite of his opinion that Natural Selection
has had nothing to do with the law of sterility : only we
are both surprised and amused to see him turn the cold
shoulder to his great auxiliary precisely at the time when
its valuable assistance would be most serviceable.

But though Natural Selection has not produced sterility,
it can cancel it, and has done so in the teeth of all that
Mr Darwin has told us of the fixedness of this law. He
gives us to understand that at some unknown time, and
without any record or evidence to attest the fact, several

• A slight modification of stnicture or instinct, correlated with the
sterile condition of certain members of the community, has been advan-
tageous to the community : consequently the fertile males and females of
the same community flourished, and transmitted to their fertile offspring a
tendency to produce sterile members having the same modification. And,
/ believcy that this process has been repeated, until that prodigious amount
of difference between the fertile and sterile females of the same species has
been produced ' (2G0).

MR DARWIN'S CENSURE OF SPECIES. 33

species of animals have become fertile amongst one another.
Thus we are frequently informed that all varieties of dogs
'descended from several wild species' (20). How op-
posite this assertion is to the general opinion of naturalists
need not to be stated, but Mr Darwin repeats the proposi-
tion in many* parts of his book, as if it were an established
fact, resting it on the sole authority of his own conjecture.
If, indeed, with a total deficiency of proof we should be
disposed to accept this innovation in Natural History,
the theory would advance a step, and the door would be
opened for that mutation of Nature without which Natural
Selection must be impotent ; but with us Mr Darwin's
creed carries no weight unless accompanied with rigorous
proof. However, on the question of the varieties of the
dog-species, Mr Darwin has much to say on the great dif-
ference between the races, but why should he refuse to this
category that which he has so strongly urged as producing
varieties in other species ? He has told us, and told us
truly, of the wonderful changes eflFected in cattle and other
animals by breeding, why then make an exception in the
case of the dog, — the creature of all others most closely
united to man, most constantly under his eye, and least at
liberty to make its own choice ? In another part of his
work, Mr Darwin says, ' lastly — and this seems to me the

♦ * / believe that our dogs have descended from several wild stocks, yet
with perhaps the exception of certain indigenous domestic dogs of South
America, all are quite fertile together/ and analogy makes me greatly
doubt, whether the several aboriginal species would, at first, have freely
bred together, and have produced quite fertile hybrids (266).

This passage involves the petitio principii more than once. First it is
assumed that dogs spring from several aboriginal species, and then it is
assumed that the crosses between them would, at first^ be sterile hybrids.
Those two words ' at first * assume the whole theory : for the meaning is,
that in process of ages Natural Selection would alter this arrangement,
and change the sterility into fertility.

34 MR DARWIN'S CENSURE OF SPECIES.

most important consideration — new races of animals and
plants are produced under domestication by man's methodi-
cal and unconscious power of selection' (291); and yet the
varieties of the dog are not to be accounted for in this way,
but by having originally sprung from distinct species. To
us, however, Buffon's reasoning on the subject is satisfac-
tory, and he seems to have established the probability that
the shepherd's dog is the * vrai chien de la nature; ' the
dog that prevails in various parts of the world with the
same character, and a similar form, and constitutes in fact

* the stock and the model of the entire species * — * la soache
et le modfele de Tesp^e entifere/

What then is the general result of all that has been ad-
vanced to forward the theory ? Truly, we may say, almost
nothing. Much is urged about the contradictory evidence
afforded us by plants — species that can be united with
facility producing hybrids * remarkably sterile ' — species
crossed with difficulty, but with a hybrid progeny when

* at last produced,' fertile. We are told that hybrids never
have been raised between species ranked by systematists
in distinct families ; and a multitude of cases could be given
of very closely allied species, which will not unite, or only
with extreme difficulty (279) ; and all this we should have
thought tends to prove the case against the theory. But
the conclusion with Mr Darwin is in these words : * Do
these singular and complex rules indicate that species has
been endowed with sterility simply to prevent their be-
coming confounded in nature ? / think not — to grant to
species the special power of producing hybrids, and then
to stop their further propagation by different degrees of
sterility, not strictly related to the facility of the first

MR DARWIirS CENSURE OF SPECIES. 35

union between their parents, seems to be a strange ar-
rangement' (282).

What matters it if the rules be singular and complex;
for, if in the end they secure the main object — the perpetuity
of the existing plan of nature — if they obstruct Mr Darwin's
scheme of fluctuation and mutation, and allow no scope to
Natural Selection to alter plants and animals, then all is
obtained that is wanted, and the theory has gained no-
thing.

This may be *a very strange arrangement' to Mr
Darwin, but it is a very efficient one ; and if, when en-
deavouring to take a short cut across the country, we go
over hedges and fences where we have no right to go, and
push on trespassing till we come to a high wall, with the
prohibitory words in large letters, * No Road this way ' —
what are we to do ? It may be a very strange arrangement
to balk us thus, but we have no alternative but to go back
again, and plod on in the beaten path on the old High
Road.

In the meau while we should remember, that all this
voluntary perplexity about varieties and species of plant is
the result of* horticultural experiments, in which na-

• M. Naudin says : * There exist in the gardens two species of Petunias
perfectly characterized. The one with white flowers (P. nyctaginiflora), the
other with purple flowers (P. violacea), without any known varieties that
have yet been recognized, but crossing with facility, and thereby producing
hybrids also fertile amongst one another. In the flrst generation, all the
hybrids resemble one another ; in the second, they are diversified in the
most remarkable manner — the one returning to the white species, the other
to the purple, and a large number marking shades between the two. If
these varieties are fertilized artificially — as is practised by some gardeners
—they obtain a third generation more motley still (encore plus bigarree),
and in continuing this procedure they arrive at extreme variations, some-
times monstrous, which the prevailing fashion considers as perfection.
That which is essential to remark here, is that these variations are

3 •

86 MR DARWIN'S CENSURE OF SPECIES,

ture takes no part. We, from motives of curiosity, try our
hand in crossing flowers, and produce some temporary in-
novations, but they are indeed ephemeral products ; and
all new varieties, whether hybrids or otherwise, if left to
themselves, would speedily disappear, and be effaced from
existence. As it is with our new plants, so is it with the
varieties of our domestic animals, — by constantly watching
and training them, and directing their sexual unions, we
keep up or improve certain breeds ; but all is artifice and
contrivance, and has established no abiding novelty.

Let man be withdrawn from the scene, and at the end
of two or three centuries, where would be our breeds, our
varieties, our races amongst animals, and where our curi-
osities in the botanical world ? The creatures w^ould all
have returned to the original wild type, the dainties of the
garden and the grove would have merged in nature's ori-
ginal plan, and all our quibbles and mystifications about
species and variety would be swept away in the undis-
turbed and majestic march of the Grand Design.

This chapter must not be dismissed without drawing
attention to the fact that in the question of mutability of
species, by which it is pretended that all forms of life have
been brought into existence, the Theory of Transmutation
stands confronted with creation, which Mr Darwin, to put
on a level with his own system, calls * a Theory '* also.

purely individual, and mthout any element of fixedness. From the sowing
of their Beeds new forms arise, which have as little resemblance to cm
another as they have to the forms which produced them.* On this, M.
Trdmaux, himself a transmutationist, observes : * It is hereby evident that
individual hybrid variations return to one or other of the species from
which they sprung, when left to themselves.*

♦ * How inexplicable on the Theory of Creation is the variable appe8^
ance of stripes on the shoulders and legs of the horse genus * (506, also
507).

MR DARWIN'S CENSURE OF SFECIES, 37

The whole question in dispute is simply this : have
plants and animals been created with a suitable organiza-
tion to occupy their places assigned to them in nature, or
have they been progressively developed by accidental
changes from antecedent forms, and do they exhibit their
characters and their habits, and hold their position as
chance has brought about, without any design ?

In the ordinary way of thinking, it is held that the power
and wisdom of the Creator designed and made organic
beings for certain objects ; and in the inimitable wisdom,
skill, and beauty of the contrivances by which this has
been eflfected, we see indisputable proofs of the high source
of the general design. When the law of species is taken
into the account, and the partitions of life are noted to be
safe within a barrier which cannot be transgressed, we see
so clearly an additional proof of the origin of the design,
that we are disposed to look on this law as the very sceptre
of the Creator — as visible evidence that the Supreme Intel-
ligence which invented all the varieties of life, has resolved
that the original plan should be maintained in all its purity,
and that the boundary lines of separation should be per-
petually respected. We see the result ; organic beings do
not change, the plan of creation is maintained.

This very plain and palpable fact, the Theory has to
meet as well as it can ; and therefore we have heard Mr
Darwin say ' that he does not think that these singular rules
indicate that species has been endowed with sterility,
simply to prevent their being confounded in nature.'

Nevertheless, almost all naturalists have thought so;
and let them think as they like, the effect of sterility and
the natural aversion to the mixture of species is indis-
putable. That these * singular rules ' have the effect of

38 MR DARWIN'S CENSURE OF SPECIES.

maintaining the order of nature is certain. For the corol-
lary we need not be very solicitous, as it cannot be
averted.

When, however, Mr Darwin thus meets the question of
design, he is wont to object that we seek to hide our ignor-
ance by taking refuge in something beyond our compre-
hension. Thus, in the case of sterility, he tells tis that we
* slur it over — because we look on it as a special endow-
ment beyond our reasoning powers' (268). After such a
rebuke we naturally expect to receive a clear solution of the
mystery from his superior reasoning powers, which disdain
the acknowledgment of ignorance. What, then, is the
explanation ? He simply tells us what we knew before,
and by many varied phrases iterates facts acknowledged
already. He tells us there are * constitutional difierences
incomprehensible to us, and confined to the reproductive
system ' (280). That in pure species the sexual elements
are perfect, and in hybrids imperfect' (268). That ster-
ility, both of first crosses and of hybrids, is simply inci-
dental, or dependent on unknown differences, chiefly in the
reproductive system of the species which are crossed (283).
That as the capacity of one species or variety of trees to
take on another is incidental on generally unknown differ-
ences in their vegetable system, so, in crossing, the greater
or less facility of one species to unite with another is inci-
dental or unknown differences in their reproductive systems
(299). That in hybridizing gallinaceous birds, the early
death of the embryo in the egg is a frequent cause of
sterility in first crosses ; and this Mr Darwin says he was
'unwilling to believe' till convinced of the fact (286).
That in unnatural crossings the organization has been dls-

MR DARWIN'S CENSURE OF SPECIES. 39

tiirbed by two different structures and constitutions having
been blended in one (288).

And with these verbal solemnities, which add nothing to
the stock of our information, Mr Darwin concludes in the
passage which we have already seen : * It must be confessed
that we do not understand^ except on vague hypotheses,
several facts with respect to the sterility of hybrids ' — * nor
do 1/ says he, * pretend that the foregoing remarks go to
the root of the matter: no explanation is offered why

AN organism, when PLACED UNDER UNNATURAL CONDI-
TIONS, IS RENDERED STERILE ' (288).

Surely after this most ample confession, Mr Darwin
might have spared himself the pains of composing half a
dozen pages of learned talk, all ending in the very point
from which he had started, without advancing a hair's
breadth towards an explanation of the mystery. We have no
difficulty, then, in concluding that the law of sterility, with
its * singular rules,' is something beyond even Mr Darwin's
reasoning powers. If we have slurred over this enigma, he,
by his expansion, has largely exhibited his ignorance, and
made it quite manifest that he is no more able to explain
the subject than we who acknowledge our ignorance, and
do not conceal that it is beyond our reasoning powers.

CHAPTER IV.

NATURAL SELECTION.

Having thus gone through the question of species as we
have seen it stated, we now come to the fundamental prin-
ciple of the whole theory, Natural Selection, which it has
become necessary occasionally to anticipate, as it. is mixed
up with Mr Darwin's statements and reasonings in eveiy
chapter of his book. It is now proposed to show at some
length what the author means by Natural Selection, ad-
ducing his own words for authentic information.

In the general explanation of Natural Selection we may
say, that it means that when plants or animals have been in
circumstances wherein some modification of their existing
organization would be for their benefit, the change has been
efiected by very slow degrees, gradually and imperceptibly
advancing towards the beneficial point ; and the changes,
however minute, accumulating, in the long-protracted pro-
cess of geological time, new forms of the animal or plant
have at last been elaborated. It is not, however, to be
supposed that these mutations have efifected a permanent
state of things, for though certain divisions of the families
of animals and plants have thus been brought into exist-
ence, so as to be recognized as genera, and * good anji dis-
tinct species,' yet this is only temporary, for all varieties

NATURAL SELECTION, 41

are to be considered as incipient species, and species itself
differs not essentially or fundamentally from variety. All
nature, then, is on the move ; that which we call Crea-
tion is not effected and finished, but is working onwards to
a finish, when all beings that have Ufe will be in a state of
perfection, and there will be no more change.

This, however, must be seen in the author's own words :

* The preservation of favourable variations and the rejection
of injurious variations I call Natural Selection ' (84). 'Nature
grants vast periods of time for the work of Natural Selec-
tion ' (1 07). * No complex instinct can be produced through
Natural Selection, except by slow and gradual accumula-
tion of numerous sUght but profitable variations ' (260).

* The chief cause of oiu* natural unwilUngness to admit that
one species has given birth to another and distinct species
is, that we are always slow in admitting any great change
of which we have not seen the intermediate steps. The
mind cannot possibly grasp the full meaning of a hundred
million of years. It cannot add up and perceive the full
effects of many slight variations, accumulated during al-
most an infinite series of generations* (516). *By the
theory of Natural Selection all living species have been con-
nected with the parent species of each genus, by differences
not greater than we see between the varieties of the same
species in the present day ; and these parent species, gener-
ally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected'
with more ancient species, and so on, backwards, always
converging to the common ancestor of each great class — so
that the number of intermediate and transitional links be-
tween all living and extinct species mu^t have been incom-
parahly great : but assuredly, if this theory be true, such
have lived upon earth ' (305). * I see no difficulty, imder

42 NATURAL SELECTION.

changing conditions of life, in Natural Selection accumulat-
ing slight modifications of instinct to any extent in any
useful direction ' (265). ' Natural Selection, on the principle
of qualities being inherited at corresponding ages, can
modify the eggs, seed, or young as easily as the adult * (144).
* On the principle of Natural Selection, with divergence
of character, it does not seem incredible that fix)m some
such low and intermediate form (the lower algce) both ani-
mals and plants may have been developed ; and */ we admit
this, we must admit that all the organic beings which have
ever lived on the earth may have descended from some one
primordial form ' (519). ' The ultimate result will be that
each creature will tend to become more and more improved
in relation to its condition of life. This improvement will,
I think, inevitably lead to the gradual advancement of the
organization of the greater number of living beings through-
out the world ' (133).

This is the creed in the authentic words of the inventor
of the theory. It is but fair, however, to add a corollary of
the whole : ' If Natural Selection be a true principle, it will
banish the heliefoi the continued creation of new organic
beings, or of any great and sudden modification of their
structure' (101). In other words, if Mr Darwin's theory
be true, we have done with the Creator. Creation disap-
pears as an obsolete idea, and Natural Selection takes its
place.

Natural Selection has another principle to aid its opera-
tions, * the Struggle for Life,' a competition for existence, by
which the weak have to make way for the strong ; so that
those animals and vegetables which can make most of their
opportunities, and most improve their qualities, arc sure to
supersede their less fortunate or less provident rivals. The

NATURAL SELECTION, 43

unimproved become extinct, whilst the accumulators of
useful varieties remain masters of the field.

On this Mr Darwin has much to say. ' How do these
groups of species, which constitute what are called distinct
genera, and which differ from each other more than do the
species of the same genus, arise ? All these results follow
fix)m the struggle for life. Owing to this struggle for life,
any variation, however slight, and from whatever cause pro-
ceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of
any species^ in its infinitely complex relations to other or-
ganic beings, and to its physical condition of life, will tend
to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be
inherited by its offspring ' (64). ' I use the term struggle
for existence in a large and metaphorical sense, including
dependence of one being on another, and including (which
is most important) not only life of the individual, but suc-
cess in bearing progeny ' (166). * In looking at Nature it is
most necessary never to forget that, every single organic
being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost
to increase in numbec^ that each lives by a struggle at
some period of its life ; that heavy destruction inevitably
falls either on the young or the old, during each generation
or at recurrent intervals. Lighten any check, mitigate the
destruction ever so little, and the number of the species
will almost instantaneously increase to any amount ' (69).

With these quotations we have enough before us to com-
prehend the author's theory. We must now endeavour to
ascertain what may be the precise meaning of the term
' Natural Selection,' which in itself contains substantially the
whole of Mr Darwin's theory. An unknown power selects
and makes choice ; it adopts, repudiates, modifies, and
changes certain qualities in animals and vegetables ; it

44 NATURAL SELECTION.

adds or diminishes attributes and endowments, and always
with a beneficial tendency to the being on which it oper-
ates ; in the great majority of instances it eflFects a change
in the right direction, after numerous incomplete experi-
ments indeed, but ultimately with success ; for improve-
ments in the universal struggle for life is the general result
of its agency. Where does this power reside ? is it in the
animals and vegetables themselves ? or is it something ex-
terior to them that superintends and directs this process of
amelioration ? Is it nature that alters the structures and
the organization ? and if so, what is nature ?

In not a few instances Mr Darwin speaks as if all this
were accomplished by that metaphorical word, Nature. ' I
see,' says he, ' no limit to the amount of change, to the
beautyand infinite complexityof the co-adaptations between
all organic beings, one with another, and with their physical
conditions of life, which may be efiected in the long course
of time by Nature^ s power of selection ' (115).

Here Nature is an intelligent agent, elaborating organized
beings with beautiful and skilful arf, adapting them for the
new circumstances of their improving condition. Nature
has the power, the knowledge, the skill, and the good taste
to advance organized beings towards perfection, in de-
signs of admirable wisdom and beauty. Nature, then, has
all the attributes of the Creator, with only a different name ;
but is Nature an intelligent power, or is it a deity ? is it a
god or a goddess ? Mr Darwin tells us, indeed, that he
uses the term metaphorically; but why, in the first place,
all through this grave and profound disquisition trifle with
a metaphor, instead of using a reality ? and why, in the
next place, forget that it is a metaphor, and continually at-

NATURAL SELECTION. 45

tribute to it acts of intelligeDce and designs of incompara-
ble skill and science ? That Mr Darwin does this beyond
any other writer we shall presently see ; indeed, he compre-
hensively informs us that ' Natural Selection is a power in-
cessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior
to man's feeble eflforts, as the works of nature are to those
of art '(65).

This, however, is not a very fortunate illustration ; for, as
Mr Darwin makes Nature, and Nature's power of selection,
and Natural Selection all one, it only amounts to this, that
Nature's works are as superior to man's works as Nature's
works are.

But here Natural Selection is described as always ready
to perform inconceivable acts of scientific skill, and is the
same as Nature elsewhere described, an intelligent, vigilant,
and energetic power, so that unless this language be
watched, we might be induced to follow the illusion that
Natural Selection has an independent existence, per se, a
position often assumed in this theory, and that not only in
passing, but enlarged on as an estabUshed fact.

In the fourth chapter, the case is stated thus. ' It has
been often said that I speak of Natural Selection as an ac-
tive power or deity, but who objects to an author speaking
of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the
planets ? Every one knows what is meant and is impUed
by such metaphorical expressions, and they are almost
necessary for brevity. So, again, it is difficult to avoid
personifying the word Nature, but I mean by Nature only
the aggregate action and product of many laws, and by laws,
the sequence of events as ascertained hy us. With a little
familiarity such superficial objection will be forgotten ' (85).

46 NATURAL SELECTION.

Mr Darwin will not, however, allow us to forget these
objections, which so far from being ' superficial,' go very
deep against his theory. But with this explanation before
us, we shall have only to apply the definition in the place
of the term, and we shall have some curious results.

But first it is to be observed that the two grand prin-
ciples of the theory are avowedly metaphors. Natural Se-
lection is a metaphorical expression, and the Struggle for
Existence is used in 'a large and metaphorical sense.'
These are the two pillars of the whole theory ; Natural Se-
lection and the Struggle for Existence represent and ex-
press everything that Mr Darwin has to urge ; take them
away and nothing remains, and yet they are both meta-
phors. If these terms are metaphors, they are not realities,
but verbal pictures or shadows, and are, therefore, vicious
terms in a scientific disquisition. Neither are they only
now and then, and by way of illustration, introduced,
though even that woidd scarcely be admissible in handling
the great revelation of the existence and origin of beings; but
they occur in almost every page, to the exclusion of other
terms — so that from first to last we are led by a metaphor
at every step, as the poor belated traveller is sometimes
led by Will-o'-the-wisp into the fatal morass.

Next we should note that an intelligent preference and
choice is attributed to Natural Selection, and this is pressed
upon us by the analogy of our own preference in improving
breeds. ' We may suppose that at an early period one man
preferred swift horses ; another, stronger and more bulky
horses. How, it may be asked, can any analogous principle
apply in Nature ? I believe it can and does apply most
eflficiently, though it was long before i saw uow, from
the simple circumstance that the more diversified the de-

NATURAL SELECTION. 47

scendents from any one species become in structure, consti-
tution, and habits, by so much will they be better enabled to
seize on many and widely diversified places in the polity
of nature, and so be enabled to increase in numbers *
(118).

The argument, then, is thus : we prefer to breed certain
horses with certain qualities ; certain animals ' become '
diversified, and the more they ' become ' so, the better
able will they be to seize on new positions, and to establish
themselves in a new condition of life ; in other words, to
'become 'new animals. And this is called an analogy ! Well,
let it stand for as much, if Mr Darwin wants to endow his
metaphor with power of preference and selection ; let him
make what he can out of the analogy of our using free
choice in the breeding of animals ; but if there be this
preference, then some intellect favoui-s, selects, and prefers,
or else the analogy is worth nothing. For the rest, we
may observe, that it is not surprising Mr Darwin should
have been a long time in discovering the analogy : a longer
meditation still might well have been conceded to the solu-
tion of the problem, for analogies and metaphors are
shadowy substances, which, after the closest acquaintance,
are not always worthy of our confidence.

After all that has been said on the subject, it is to be
hoped that the eyes of the reader will not be bUnded with
the dust of words by which this theory is made to push its
way. Natural Selection is, as a fact, absolutely nothing: there
is no power or intellect to select anything, and nothing is
selected. The whole matter is this : animals, as it is pre-
tended, in the course of time manifest some slight benefi-
cial variation in their organization, — this they transmit to
their progeny : the improved progeny has the best chance

48 NATURAL SELECTION.

in the struggle for life, and takes the place occupied by
the unimproved animals, which, unable to sustain their ex-
istence owing to the superior qualities of their competitors,
are infallibly exterminated. The successful animals, or the
survivors, Mr Darwin, by a figure of speech, calls the
selected ones ; but Selection in his system simply means
not perishing. This most inaccurate use of words may be
thus illustrated. Let us suppose that the following para-
graph should appear in a newspaper, ' Yesterday a serious

accident took place on the line. The mail-train ran

ofi* the line, precipitating all the carriages down a steep
bank. Three of the passengers were killed on the spot,
and seven severely wounded ; all the rest, we are happy
to say, not less than a hundred and fifty in number, were*
selected.*

Now that this is the real meaning of this mystery, Mr
Darwin frankly acknowledges : ' I have called this prin-
ciple, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved
by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation
to man's power of selection ' (64). This important passage
reveals to us the motive which prompted Mr Darwin to
invent the term, it was to introduce an imaginary re-
semblance between sentient beings making use of their
reasoning faculties for preference and selection, and 'a
series of events' incapable of making choice of anything.
That the term has been successful, and flourishes splendidly
in Mr Darwin's pages, we see at every turn ; Mr Darwin
himself tells us he has such confidence in his figure of

• That Mr Darwin makes use oi preservation as if it were a strict gram-
matical synonyrae with selection^ and vice veraa^ we see in this passage :
! * Under such circumstances, the swiftest and slimmest wolves would have
the best chance of surviving, and so be preserved or selected * (96).

NATURAL SELECTION. 49

speech that he believes it can accomplish anything, even
the most complicated, ingenious, and beautiful contrivances
that it is possible to imagine in all the productions of na-
ture ; and yet when this effervescence of enthusiasm sub-
sides, what is there to find ? — that certain animals continue
to exist !

Natural Selection, therefore, we affirm is a term to be
utterly discarded. It is a verbal deception, and the only
substance to be discovered, after the elimination of the
metaphor, is that a certain series of events is said to have
taken place, though those events are contested and denied.

This we shall have occasion to insist on again and again,
and it is of the utmost consequence to the due understand-
ing of the theory of transmutation.

It may perhaps surprise some of us to find Sir C. Lyell
expressing himself in the highest terms of admiration in
his estimate of this same figure of speech : ' To many, this
doctrine of Natural Selection, or the preservation of favoured
races " in the struggle for life," seems so simple^ when once
clearly stated, and so consonant with known facts and re-
ceived principles, that they have difficulty in conceiving
how it can constitute a great step in the progress of
science. Such is often the case with important discoverieSj
but in order to assure ourselves that the doctrine was by
no means obvious, we have only to refer back to the
writings of skilful naturalists who attempted in the eariier
part of the nineteenth century to theorize on this subject,
before the invention of this new method of explaining how
certain forms are supplanted hy new ones, and in what man-
ner these last are selected out of innumerable varieties and
rendered permanent.' — (Antiquity of Man, 417.)

50 NATURAL SELECTION.

Thus Sir C. Lyell seems to think that, owing to ' this
important discovery/ Mr Darwin is the Columbus of na-
ture's hitherto undiscovered regions, and that now at last
true light has dawned on physiology.

* dens ille fuit, deus, inclyte Memmi, *
Qui princeps vitas rationem invenit earn qu83
Nunc appellatar sapiential qiiique per artem
Fluctibus e tantis vitam tantisque tcnebris
In tarn tranquillo et tarn clard luce locavit*

This doctrine may perhaps appear too ' simple ' to some
of its admirers, who can scarcely believe that so great ' a
discovery ' can have been so easily made. Nevertheless,
its simplicity all turns on this, that we are to believe that
the slight advantageous variations, the result of accident,
have appeared in animals, and that they have been accu-
mulated till the changing animal, in the lapse of geological
time, has, through innumerable mutations of antecedent
animals now extinct, been ultimately transformed into
some creature of different organization and character.

We have to believe that all these intermediate forms of
extinct animals have really existed, and existed too for a
very long time, as no new animal with advantageous varia-
tions sufficient to displace its congeners, can have been pro-
duced but in a long series of ages.

This we have to believe, and though geology ' does not
reveal ' any of the evidences of this history, owing to the
' extreme imperfection of its records ; ' yet we are to be-
lieve that it ought to have revealed it.

Moreover, and that is the most important point of all,
in believing that 'certain forms are supplanted by new
ones,' we have to renounce our belief in the power and wis-
dom of the Creator, and to take out of his hands the pro-
duction of all living things.

NATURAL SELECTION. 51

All this is very simple, doubtless, to persons who have
embraced the theory of transmutation, but it would seem
indispensable that our understanding should be in a state
of a corresponding simplicity before we could venture to
launch after this Columbus in his newly-discovered world.

CHAPTER V.

THE FUNCTIONS OF NATURAL SELECTION.

Having established the meaning of Natural Selection, we
go on to consider the functions assigned to it in the theory.

' Natural Selection can only act through and for the good
of each being;' and on this principle it chooses colours,
makes leaf-eating insects green, and bark-feeders mottle-
grey, the ptarmigan white in winter, the red grouse the col-
our of the heather, and the black grouse that of peaty earth.
Grouse, if not destroyed at some period of their lives, would
increase in countless numbers — ^hawks are guided by eye-
sight to their prey. ' Hence,' says the author, ' / can see no
reason to doubt that Natural Selection might be most effect-
ive in giving the proper colour to each kind of grouse, and
in keeping that colour, when once acquired, true and con-
stant ' (89).

Natural Selection, therefore, foresaw the proper colour for
effecting concealment, gave the tint that would best an-
swer the purpose, and has preserved it.

' We must believe,' says Mr Darwin, * that these tints are
of service to these birds and insects in preserving thera
from danger.' There is no difficulty in believing this, we
always have believed it ; but then the question arises, as
these colours have been assigned to the animals to preserve

THE FUNCTIONS OF NATURAL SELECTION 53

them from danger, whose was the provident intellect that
devised and predetermined this mode of defence, and then
produced the means to render it efficacious ? We have no
difficulty in answering the question, but in this theory no
providential design, no supreme creative will, can be admit-
ted ; so that, if we ask again how these protecting tints were
produced, we learn by referring to the definition, that it
was ' by the aggregate action and product of the sequence
of events as ascertained by us/ That is, we see things in a
certain form, and that is the reason of their being so. Colours
are produced to defend animals from danger, and answer
the purpose well, but they were not designed or devised to
produce this beneficial eflPect, but they have become what
they are by a sequence of events ; the eflPect is the cause of
the eflTect ; events produce themselves, and that is the cause
of their being produced.

Now, as the author of this profound theory frequently
reminds us of the vast superiority of the achievements of
Natural Selection over anything that man can devise or
accomplish, we are at liberty to apply this sort of reasoning
with much greater force to the productions of human skill,
as it must be so much easier to make machinery, such as is
produced by the hands of man, than to imitate the smallest
of the works of nature. When therefore we see a superior
watch, or a highly improved steam-engine, and are asked
who made them, we may confidently affirm that they were
not designed or made by any one, but are ' the result of the
aggregate action, and the product of the sequence of events
as ascertained by us/

But to proceed with the functions of the great Improver.
Natural Selection gave winged seeds to the dandelion. ' If
it profit a plant to have its seeds more and more widely

5i THE FUNCTIONS OF NATURAL SELECTION.

disseminated by the wind, / see no greater difficulty in
this being eflFected through Natural Selection than in the
cotton-planter increasing and improving by selection the
down in the pods of his cotton-trees' (91). Most people
would say that it was not quite so easy to give wings to
seeds as to improve cotton-plants by selecting the most
downy pods. Mr Darwin seems to find no difficulty in it,
but by what process he would enable a kidney-bean, a pea,
or a mustard-seed to fly through the air he has not in-
formed us. Wings however are ft ready article in the
theory, as we shall hereafter see.

In this particular case, it should be noted that the dande-
lion has not only improved itself, as every other being has
in this theory, but it has had an eye to the benefit and
settlement of its progeny. It has foreseen that it would
' profit ' its family ' to be more and more widely dissemi-
nated,' and having therefore determined to make its descend-
ants colonists, has invested its seeds with volant qualities,
to find their fortunes, as aeronauts, far away from the pa-
rental station.

Manifold are the transformations which have been brought
about in the process of time, for ' we may believe that the
progenitor of the ostrich was the bustard, and that as Na-
tural Selection increased, in successive generations, the size
and weight of the body, its legs were used more and its wings
less, till they became incapable of flight' (152). In this
authentic history of the feathered race we have the counter-
part to the acquisition of wings, for it seems that animals
may not only acquire wings but also get rid of the faculty
of flying, though in this particular instance it is di£5cult to
ascertain what the bustard has gained by turning himself
into an ostrich. Considering the calamities that this

THE FUNCTIONS OF NATURAL SELECTION. 55

change has brought on the ostrich, one of the most perse-
cuted of animals, we suspect he would not be sorry to
return to his bustard orighi if only he knew how. Natural
Selection always operates for the benefit of the changing
animal, but whether when animals have got into a scrape
by * bettering themselves,' they can get out of it by retro-
gressive selection is perhaps a fact not yet determined.*

As however the breed of bustards still exists, it is clear
that some only of that species were disposed to make the
change : the more sober ones were content with the actual
state of things, and thought it better to ' let well alone.'

As a general proposition we are to understand that wings
may be acquired where they did not previously exist. * It
requires a long succession of ages to adapt an organism to
some new and pecuUar form of life, as for instance to fly
through the air (328) ; and, indeed, it is essential to this
theory that every existing bird should have acquired the
faculty of flight, not by original constitution and appoint-
ment, but by gradual mutation, and accumulation of bene-
ficial qualities, tending to the development of wings. Mr
Darwin discusses this transformation with well-sustained
gravity, and finishes with these words : —

' We do not see the transitional grade through which the
wings of birds have passed ; but what special difficulty is
there in beUeving that it might profit the modified descend-
ants of the penguin, first to become enabled to flap along
the surface of the sea, like the logger-headed duck, and
ultimately to rise from its surface and glide through tlie air?'

(329).

Such passages as these seem almost incredible in a

• Retrogressive Natural Selection seems to bo admitted in the theory.
On this subject more will bo said hereafter.

56 THE FUNCTIONS OF NATURAL SELECTION.

treatise having any pretensions to scientific standing; and
truly may we say, that if such reasoning as this belongs to
even the lowest and most rudimentary form of science, then
Cuvier, Agassiz, Miiller, Owen, Jones, Sedgwick, Phillips,
and others, never understood its import, nor comprehended
the true method of investigating nature. None of these
prodigies of interpretation, however, seem to startle Mr
Darwin. Having made up his mind to place the sceptre
of creation in the hands of his Metaphor, he seems to re-
joice in extravagant expressions which may in any way
glorify the chief puppet of his theory. Hence he tells us
' She can act on every internal organ, on every shade of
constitutional difierence, on the whole machinery of Ufe '
(87). And with such a declaration, what may we not expect
to be hazarded for its illustration ?

In one of the author's most eccentric passages, we have
the following curious information accompanied by reason-
ing equally curious. ' The tail of the giraflFe looks like
an artificially constructed fly-flapper ; and it seems at first
incredible that this should have been adapted for its pre-
sent purpose by successive slight modifications, each better
and better,^/* so trifling an object as driving away flics;
yet we should pause before being too positive even in this
case, for we know that the distribution and existence of
cattle and other animals in South America absolutely de-
pend on their power of resisting the attacks of insects ; so
that individuals, which could by any means defend them-
selves from these small enemies, would be able to range in
new pastures, and thus gain a great advantage. A well-
developed tail having been formed in an aquatic animal, it
might subsequently come to he worked in for all sorts oj

THE FUNCTIONS OF NATURAL SELECTION. 57

purposes — as a fly-flapper, an organ of prehension, or as aid
in turning, as with the dog' (215).

There are several points to notice in this statement: first,
a well-developed tail 'had been formed' in an aquatic
animal. How formed? By Natural Selection, of course,
for the theory allows of no other formative power; but as
this is always an exceedingly slow operation, requiring
many ages, there must have been some thousands of ages
when aquatic animals had no tails at all ! They were
forming in the waters by Natural Selection, but how, dur-
ing the tailless period of their history, they directed their
course in the water is not explained ; fishes without tails
would certainly be curiosities. However, such was their
condition before ' their tails were formed/ After this, the
fishes having in the process of long ages acquired a tail, that
important appendage to their existence 'came to be worked
in ! ' How worked in, and who was the artificer of the
work ? The Metaphor, of course, — the ever watchful and
ingenious Natural Selection. She 'worked m' the fishes'
tails into the posterior extremities of the vertebral column
of sundry land-animals. The meaning of which is, certain
fishes ' came to be ' converted into land-animals, and then
their tails were adapted to their new forms which they had
acquired. Some for flappers (horses, cows, &c.), some as
prehensile tails (monkeys), some as rudders in turning.

Thus, then, the tail of a horse may have been antecedently
the caudal instrument of a shark, a cow may have derived
her tail from the skate, and the girafie owe his fly-flapper
to a remote progenitor, the sturgeon.

Mr Darwin, solicitous to sustain the dignity of Natural
Selection, feels it but due to her character to apologize for

58 THE FUNCTIONS OF NATURAL SELECTION

the formation of a tail, through her instrumentality, for
* so trifling an object as driving away flies/ We are then
gravely informed, as if we had never heard it before, that
cattle in hot countries cannot dispense with a tail — ' the
distribution and existence of cattle and other animals in
South America depend upon their power of resisting in-
sects.' The learned author need not have referred us to
South America to prove his position ; what we see in Eng-
land is convincing enough on that head. Cattle deprived
of their tails in a hot summer in this country would go
wild, and would probably perish in the excess of irritation.
We are fully convinced that this is not a trifling matter.
Natural Selection has not at all demeaned herself in conde-
scending to ' work in ' fishes' tails into the organization of
cattle and other animals. Thus, then, Mr Darwin comes
to the conclusion that it really has been for the benefit of
animals that they should have tails for fly-flappers ; only he
must have the tail formed in his own peculiar way to suit
his theory. The poor animals did not make their appear-
ance in life with this necessary provision, but in a million
of years or so they very slowly acquired a tail. To use his
own words, ' it was adapted for its present purpose, by
successive slight modifications, each better and better ' —
the tail always growing a little longer because it was more
advantageous for the beast to have it lengthened — whilst
the beasts that had no tail growing, died off by myriads in
the struggle for life. Now this, be it observed, is seriously
meant, though not so expressed, for in this very part of his
disquisition, Mr Darwin is careful to remind us 'that it
certainly is not true that new organs appear suddenly in any
class ' (214). A memento to prevent us admitting a state-
ment which might seem to imply a work of creation. We

THE FUNCTIONS OF NATURAL SELECTION. : 69

must therefore be very careful to remember that the tail of
the horse, or the cow, or the giraffe, grew very slowly ; and
this of course means geological slowness. But a cow or horse
with a tail only the hundred-thousandth part of its present
length would not reap much benefit from the addition : it
would only be appreciable by a powerful microscope, and
would be of no advantage to its proprietor as far as we can
see. Let us suppose that at the end of some thousand
years a cow's tail had grown an inch long, it would cer-
tainly avail nothing for the flagellation of insects, nor can
we see any reason why this slowly-improving cow or horse
should by this * slight variation ' gain the victory in the
competition for existence; nevertheless, cows' tails grew
by Natural Selection, till at last they came to be those in-
struments which we now see them to be, mutatis mutandis.
This sort of history is applicable to every animal — to the
trunk of the elephant, the homs of the deer, the hoof of
the horse, &c.

This, however, incidentally lets us into a secret, that
in all these dreams of transformation a prospective advan*
tage is always implied, as is obvious in this history of tails.
No organ can be made suddenly, that is a fundamental
rule in the theory ; nevertheless, every remarkable organ
has been slowly advancing in its formation, till it becomes
the instrument requisite for some particular purpose, and
then it advances no more. This implies, and means, that
there is a design somewhere. Mr Darwin may shrink
from this as he likes, but his slow growth of organs tend-
ing to an object, and that growth ceasing when the object
is obtained, means only slow design. Mr Darwin may flat-
ter himself that his millions of ages may conceal this, but
it only makes apparent, that when any one tries to explain

60 THE FUNCTIONS OF NATURAL SELECTION

the productions of nature without a design he has an im-
possible task on his hands, and that it is impracticable to
frame such a theory without occasionally admitting the
principle which it is especially intended to exclude.

But this history of animals has greater marvels still, for
not only had many of these terrestrial creatures an ' aquatic
origin' (215), but some land-animals have changed their
original nature, and become aquatic. If we should be
startled by hearing that a giraffe was once a fish, full as
great must be our surprise to hear that a whale was once a
bear. * In North America,' we are informed, * the black
bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely
open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the
water, / see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered
by Natural Selection more and more aquatic in their struc-
ture and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a crea-
ture was produced as monstrous as a whale.'* This ap-
peared in the first edition of the Origin of Species, but has
been suppressed in the subsequent editions, for no suffi-
cient reason, as far as we can discern. It is in perfect
harmony with all the rest of this wonderful creed, and
is not one whit more ridiculous than many other state-
ments reprinted in the last edition. The reader would
be puzzled in endeavouring to strike the balance of
absurdity between the origin of tails and the parentage

* In the third and subsequent editions the passage is thus given :—

* In North America the black bear was seen by Heame swimming for
hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, a/7no«^/t^ a u;AaZe, insects in
the water ' (202).

The transformation is thus omitted. Nevertheless, the statement is left
now as suggestive of the transformation, for it follows immediately a pas-
sage in which the author suggests the probable change of many birds.
Indeed, if it docs not convey this hint, the whole passage seems to want a
purpose.

THE FUNCTIONS OF NATURAL SELECTION 61

of the whale. This, however, is not to be forgotten, that
when the ursine-whale began his career, he must have had
his tail to make : and this would be just the reverse of the
other story. The land-animals derive their tails from the
waters, having originally been fishes ; but in this case, a
land-animal goes into the water to procure a tail, and live
like a fish.

But we must still for a while keep to our text : —

' In nova fert aDimus matatas dicere formas
Corpora — *

Thus we are told that the penguin, by natural selection,
became a swift-flying bird (324) ; and we are assured, more
than once, that the horse and tapir, the camel and the pig,
are * joined together by family-ties ' (324) ; but whether
the pig is descended from the horse or the camel, or the
pig is progenitor of the tapirs, or the tapir of the horse,
or vice versdj or whether they all sprung from a common
progenitor,is not certain. However, this is certain — accord-
ing to the theory, that not only something of this sort has
taken place, but that we are all of the same family, and that
we have ties of descent with the elephant, the bat, the por-
poise, the girafie, and the crab — ^we all spring from one
progenitor, and we are branches of one great family. ' The
frame-work of bones being similar, in the hands of a man,
wing of a bat, fin of the porpoise, leg of the horse, the same
number of vertebrae for the neck of the giraffe and ele-
phant, and innumerable other such facts * at once explain
themselves on the theory of descent, with slow and slight
successive modifications. The similarity of pattern in
the wing and leg of a bat, things used for such different
purposes, and in the jaw and leg of a crab, and the
petals, stamens, and pistils of a flower, is intelligible on the

62 THE FUNCTIONS OF NATURAL SELECTION.

view of the gradual modifications of parts and organs,
which were alike the progenitors of each class/

Here is a curious assemblage ! — men, bats, porpoises,
giraffes, horses, crabs, elephants, and flowers all mixed up
together. In this medley we may pick and choose our
parents or first cousins, according to our inclination ; or
if the list should appear circumscribed, we may add the
tapir and pig and camel — * closely joined together by
family-ties ' — with the horse; and with this handsome list of
ancestors, we may be able perhaps to account for the dif-
ferent dispositions which we find in ourselves, our friends,
and acquaintances.

That our origin is aquatic is an established point in the
theory, so that when we thoroughly understand this, we
need not be so much surprised to find ourselves, as well as
giraffes and elephants, associated in genealogy with crabs
and porpoises. 'AH physiologists admit that the swim-
bladder is homologous, or ideally similar, with the lungs of
the higher vertebrate animals ; ' hence there seems to me
to be no extreme difficulty in believing that Natural Selec-
tion has actually converted a s\nm-bladder into a lung.
On this view it may be * inferred that all vertebrate ani-
mals having true lungs have descended by ordinary genera-
tion from an ancient prototype, of which we know no-
thing, funiished with a floating apparatus or swim-bladder '
(210).

The proof drawn from an ' ideal similarity ' leading to a
progenitor, * of which we know nothing,' and so endowing
us all with lungs instead of swim-bladders, which our un-
known progenitor possessed, is very convincing ; and
perhaps we might suggest as corroborating the proof of
our aquatic origin, that we are disposed to call an ec-

THE FUNCTIONS OF NATURAL SELECTION, 63

centric person * an odd fish ' — doubtless with reference to
the ancient traditions of the family.

But if swim-bladders have been transformed into lungs
'in the higher vertebrata, the branchiae (of the fishes
and Crustacea) have wholly disappeared . . . and it is con-
eeivable that the now utterly lost branchiae might have been
worked in for some quite distinct purpose , . . it is proha^
hie that organs which at a very ancient period served for
respiration, have been^ actually converted into organs of
flight' (211).

All this, however, relates to anatomical structure and the
adaptation of organizations. We now must turn our atten-
tion to outward form and comeliness, which has not origin-
ated in any design to produce the beautiful ; for ' nature
cares nothing for appearances ' (87), but it is to be attri-
buted to a cause which never would have been suspected.
Beauty amongst birds and beasts, and I suppose fishes
and insects too, originates in the preference of the females
for handsome males ! ' The birds of Paradise and some
others congregate, and successive males display their gor-
geous plumage, and perform antics before the females,
which, standing by as spectators, at last choose the most
attractive partner. Sir R. Heron has described how one
pied peacock was eminently attractive to the hen birds.
/ can see no good reason to doubt that female birds by
selecting, during thousands of generations, the most me-
lodious or beautiful males, according to their standard of
beauty, might produce a marked effect. Thus, then, I
believe, that when males and females of any animal differ
in structure, colour, or ornament, such difference has
mainly been caused by sexual selection ; that is, individual
males have had, in successive generations, some slight ad-

64 THE FUNCTIONS OF NATURAL SELECTION,

vantages over other males in their weapons, means of
defence, or charms, and have transmitted these advantages
to their offspring* (94).

This romantic orio^in of beautv is however acknowled^^ed
not to be useful, except in * a forced sense,' for * the dis-
playing of beauty to charm the females,' and thus producing
a beautiful progeny is of no real use (219), and yet it is
effected according to the theory, so that Natural Selection
does, afler all, produce both the useful and the ornamental.

Here we must for a moment resume the serious tone, to
draw attention to the flagrant abuse of words by which
the theory is argued. It has already been noticed that
both Natural Selection and the Struggle for Existence are
avowed metaphors, and now when we have come to na-
ture's most striking attribute, her beauty, we find it ex-
plained to us as originating in Natural Selection in *a
forced sense,' as if it had been selected for its utility, when
the author candidly confesses that it is of no direct use.
* The effect of sexual selection, when displayed in beauty to
cliarm the females, can only be called useful in rather a
forced sense' (219).

Now mark this, unless it be for the direct use of the
animal or plant, nothing can be done by Natural Selection.
This is the fundamental proposition on which the whole
theory rests, repeated over and over again in many pas-
sages ; everything is based on this, — take this away and
the theory vanishes. Is not then this an instance in which
the author has confuted himself? Has he not check-
mated himself, and is not this manifest ?

He has taken pains to show us, that by Natural Selec-
tion the female birds are instrumental in producing hand-

THE FUNCTIONS OF NATURAL SELECTION 65

some males. Now the ornament of the male bird is
beauty in its stronghold: what can be thought of more
exquisite than the plumage of many of these glorious
creatures ? This is no trifle in Nature, it is the frieze of
her splendid temple, one of the most admirable expressions
of beauty that she has selected for the decoration of her
majestic fabric. Well, this dazzling attribute, said to be of
no use, according to the theory, and produced only to please
the eye of females, has been elaborated by Natural Selec-
tion, which spurns all ornament, and * cares nothing for
appearances/ and never produces anything that is not
strictly useful. If then this is not self-contradiction, and
self-confutation, there must be an end of logic in the
world.

Here the Theory ceases to be ridiculous, for it is
truly melancholy to see a writer of such large information
and superior intellect reduced to the necessity of making
this avowal. *Some naturalists beheve that very many
structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of
man, or for mere variety. This doctrine, if true, would

BE absolutely FATAL TO MY THEORY ' (219).

Poor, miserable Theory ! which, quarrelling with creation,
will not allow that the decorations of this terrestrial scene
have been sketched and executed by a supreme intelligence
that sees beauty in its essence, and from that intuition has
turned out myriad graceful forms tinted with refulgent
colours, in well-considered contrast, or blended in perfect
taste ; and for all regions, and for every climate, has pre-
pared endless varieties of elegance, attractiveness, and
symmetry, — a theory that will not allow an artist to
have executed the picture, though it acknowledges its

66 THE FUNCTIONS OF NATURAL SELECTION

beauty, and so betakes itself to cocks and hens as a reftige
from creation, and seeks shelter under a Metaphor to
escape from Omnipotence !

' Some naturalists believe ' ! all mankind believes it, all
nations in all ages ; not to believe it is to be stultified with
the nepenthe of sophism, or drunken with the dregs of
paradox. Our very nature is at war with such a delusion,
and one of the first exercises of our awakened intellect is
to confess in the words of the ancient days,

' He hath made all things beautiful in his time.'

But we resume the description of Natural Selection.
We have seen that 'one pied peacock was eminently
attractive to the hens,' to convince us that the splendid
plumage of the males is due to the selecting admiration of
the females. We must suppose therefore that the male
and female, long before the Silurian era, differed very little
in the external appearance, but one peacock having by
some lucky accident acquired a feather of striking ap-
pearance, he became a favourite with the ladies, so that in
the next hatching the eggs fecundated by the beau, pre-
dominated over those by the plain males. Young peacocks
were hatched with the paternal feather, they of course
were also favourites with the fair sex, and the ornamented
males increased in number. Natural Selection after this
helped them, in the revolution of ages, to the rest of their
grand plumage, the purple, green, gold, and cinnamon, the
gorgeous-eyed long feathers of the sweeping train, the
graceful crest, and the large lustrous eye. Natural Se-
lection, or nature which really does not care for appear-
ances, took no interest in this change going on, but, to
gratify the fair, lent a helping hand, and thus we have
beauty in the male birds.

THE FUNCTIONS OF NATURAL SELECTION. 67

In this way we may understand the moral qualities of
birds by the appearance of the males. The dusky cocks,
which differ Uttle from the hens, have had quaker-eyed
partners, fond of the drab colours and homely attire ; the
pea-hens, the pheasants, the birds of Paradise, the humming-
birds, and many more of the splendid species, descend
from vain mothers, allured by gauds and garish show. The
ai^us-pheasant, perhaps the most magnificent of male
birds, is a sad instance of the frivolous disposition of his
maternal ancestors. The crows and rooks spring from a
grave and clerical Uneage. The cock-sparrow argues the
sobriety of taste that prevailed in his respectable family.

Mr Darwin, indeed, seems to have misgivings ' lest it
should appear childish to attribute any effect to such weak
means ' (94) ; but after a little talking over the matter,
concludes, as usual, that he 'sees no good ground to
doubt,' 'and so inserts the article in his creed ; for a creed
it is, and continually presented to us as such, by the
established formulary : ' I believe.*

To finish this picture with the last touch, the author in-
forms us that 'he would not attribute all such sexual
differences to this agency, for some of the peculiarities of
the males he cannot believe are attractive to the females,
particularly the tuft of hair on the breast of the turkey-
cock, which he considers neither as useful nor orna-
mental ' (95).

But has the learned author consulted the turkey-hens
on this subject ? de ffustibus non disputandum : the fair
ones may admire a strong tuft of hair on their husband's
breasts, who knows ? Philosophers and turkey-hens can-
not be supposed always to see matters from one and the
same point of view.

68 THE FUNCTIONS OF NATURAL SELECTION.

To meet all this with serious argument would be a waste
of time, but still we might inquire how it comes that the
plumage of the male birds is generally fur superior to that
of the females. In far the greater number of cases it is
acknowledged to be so, when there is any material differ-
ence between the sexes. It is a rare case where the female
surpasses the male in beauty. How is it then that ad-
miration has all been on one side, and that the males, whose
ardour of love seems to contrast with the coyness of the
females, have been totally indifferent to the beauty of the
fair sex ? It is the male which generally seeks out and
woos the female, as Mr Darwin notices ; we should there-
fore have expected just the reverse of the established rule ;
for if the males had selected the improving females and
neglected the others, this would have been ' selection/ and
the females would have inherited the ornaments which we
are disposed to consider as the proper attribute of that sex.

Before this sketch of the general functions 'of Natural
Selection is dismissed, it should be noted that some animals
— and especially some classed as domestic — ^seem to resist
Natural Selection ; in other words, they do not appear to
manifest any tendency to transformation. ' Although I do
not doubt that some domestic animals vary less than others,
yet the rarity or absence of distinct breeds of the cat, the
donkey, peacock, goose, &c., may be attributed in main
part to selection not having been brought into play * (43).
This is a curious admission of the author, as if he had for-
gotten his^ millions of ages with which he usually meets
the objection that we are not able to discern any change
effecting in animals in the present day. Indeed, in another
passage, he notices that some have urged against his theory
that the mummy cats of Egypt differed not at all from those

THE FUNCTIONS OF NATURAL SELECTION. 69

now in existence ; to which he replies, * What does this prove
but that the cats of Egjrpt five thousand years ago resem-
bled the present race?* — as if five thousand years were but
a moment in his scale of time.

However, in the passage before us we see it acknowledged
that Natural Selection has ' not been brought into play,'
an expression which, when closely examined, means really
that those animals have not begun to change themselves.
Their limbs have not been ' plastic ' — a favourite little
word with the author, in which is slily condensed the power
of self-creation — and so they have not brought Natural
Selection into play.

The author finishes his remarks on this part of his sub-
ject with the following droll observation : * The goose seems
to have a singularly inflexible organization.' Natural Se-
lection, then, does not seem to be able to change a goose.
That wise animal (for so we must esteem it) thinks it better
to adhere to a conservative policy, and to be satisfied with
things as they are, having no desire to lapse into a giraffe,
a crab, an elephant, or a philosopher.

CHAPTER VI.

NATURAL SELECTION OPERATING IN INSTINCT.

In the Origin of Species there is a chapter dedicated to
Instinct, and it is here that we now follow the author.

Instinct, even in its most striking examples, like every
thing else in this theory, is to be traced to the operations

of Natural Selection. ' Under changed conditions of life

•

it is at least possible that sHght modifications of Instinct
might be profitable to a species ; ' and if it can be shown
that instincts do vary ever so little, then I can see no diffi-
culty in Natural Selection preserving and continually accu-
mulating variations of instinct to any extent that was pro-
fitable. It is thus, I believe, that all the most complex and
wonderful instincts have originated ' (229).

* Surely,' says M. Flourens, ' we cannot take this as
meant to be serious : Natural Selection choosing an
instinct !

la pocsie a scs licences, mais

Celle-ci passe un peu les homes que j'y mets.'

•

However, this we are to understand, that according to the
theory no animals made their first appearance in the scene
of life endowed with peculiar instincts, but acquired them
* by the slow and gradual accumulation of numerous slight,
yet profitable, variations ' (230). Thus the honey-bee was

NATURAL SELECTION IN INSTINCT, 71

not the insect that it now is, with its peculiar polity ; nor
were the ants what we now know them to be ; nor were the
beavers distinguished by their architectural capacities ; nor
did the migratory birds * know their seasons : ' for in all
those cases, and many more which are the theme of con-
stant admiration, Natural Selection had not ' been brought
into play/

Of course, then, the animals in the days of their deficiency
of instinct, were other creatures than they are now ; and as
they must have had different habits, their organization must
have been different. Take the instance of the spider, admired
for the instinct which prompts it to construct its artful web,
it could not, when it did not possess that instinct, exercise
the faculty of capture, and therefore could not live as a
destroyer of insects. It must have been altogether different.
The glutinous fluid prepared for the spinners, with which
the creature twists its thread of some thousand filaments,
could not have existed, nor the sieve-like spinnarets pierced
with numerous holes for the exudation of the liquid, which
dries the moment it comes in contact with the air. And
as the legs of the animal are adapted for its textile labours,
these must have been different, and its disposition, appe-
tite, and all its habits unlike what they now are. In other
words, it was not then a spider. Neither is it possible to
conceive how, through the instrumentality of Natural Selec-
tion, it ever could have become a spider, for as such a
transformation would be a process requiring thousands of
ages, and in the case of * complex instincts * millions, the
spider-to-be would have derived no benefit from the rudi-
ments of a web, as the web must be what now it is to catch
flies ; and if we were to concede that by the accumulation
of profitable modifications the spinnarets began to grow.

72 NATURAL SELECTION

and the viscous liquid to be secreted in the body, of what
use would this be to the spider till furnished with the
whole apparatus with which it might seize its prey?
What advantage would it have been to the creature to have
produced an infinitesimal portion of web, without the
whole plan — the concentric circles, the radii, the foundation
cables, and the whole apparatus?

Turn it then as you will, the spider must have been what
it is, as soon as it came into existence ; it must have had
its instincts, its organization, its habits, and its general
character contemporaneously. It must have been called
into being as a weaver and constructor of an implement to
catch insects, or else it would not have been a Spider. It
came into the scene fully prepared to sustain its part in
nature for the object for which it had been designed :
organs, secretion, disposition, and instinct were its dowry,
all together, and with one object ; and if any one can doubt
that it was an animal ordained to repress the redundancy
of the insect race, he must either by misfortune or the most
resolute perverseness have lost or abandoned the right use
of his reason.

And these remarks, mutatis mutandis^ will apply to all
cases of instinct.

As the stronghold of instinct is with the social animals,
it is here that the theory has the boldest achievements to
accompHsh, and, as we shall see, has dared the most. With
the ants and the honey-bee, the existence of neuters is a
well-known part of the constitution of their society ; and
this peculiarity, the groundwork of much of their polity, is
thus explained for us : * Thus I believe it has been with
social insects ; a slight modification of structure, or in-
stinct, correlated with the sterile condition of certain mem-

OPERATING IN INSTINCT. 73

bers of the community, has been advantageous to the com-
munity ; consequently, the fertile males and females of the
same commimity flourished, and transmitted to their fertile
o£&pring a tendency to produce sterile members, having the
same modification. And I believe this process has been
repeated, until that prodigious amount of difference be-
tween the fertile and sterile females of the same species
has been produced, which we see in many social insects *
(260).

If we apply this to the honey-bees, and this must be the
most important application, we should remember that their
polity and the constitution of their society have specific
arrangements, which, if altered or made otherwise than
they now are, ' the community,' as far as we know any-
thing about it, would not exist at all.

If, therefore, at any times all the females were fertile, as
the above explanation of the case informs us they once
were, then * the community ' did not exist ; and to pretend
that it existed in some other form than that which now
exists, is simply to insist on a fable, and may be dismissed
as an idle dream, of which nothing like a proof can possibly
be adduced.

Moreover, it is not sufficient to imagine that the neuters
were once fertile, for we must also imagine that when the
fertile females were transforming themselves into sterile
neuters for the benefit of society, that one female was, by
a long preconcerted scheme, at the same time prodigiously
increasing her fertility in order to become the sole Mother
and Queen of the whole hive. But it seems to be an easy
matter not only for one individual to increase its fertility
to any amount, but for fertile animals to agree to produce,
and actually to produce, sterile offspring! 'the fertile

74 NATURAL SELECTION

males and females flourished/ we are told, * and transmitted
to their fertile offspring a tendency to produce sterile mem-
bers r

Surely this is the most marvellous of all the marvels which
we have yet met with : fertile parents transmit through
fertile progeny, a tendency to produce sterile members of
society ! Thus, then, sterility springs from fertility ! and,
because parents and children are fertile, therefore, and as a
consequence, their grandchildren are sterile ! Such is the
logic of the theory.

But again: 'a slight modification of structure or in-
stinct, correlated with the sterile condition of certain mem-
bers of the community, has been advantageous to the com-
munity,' — these gentle words carry with them a world of
meaning, and yet they are so quietly introduced, that they
might almost be supposed to express well-known facts
which no one disputed. * A slight modification of structure
or instinct,' not only begs the whole question, but takes
for granted that to change the stracture or the instinct of
an animal is as easy with them, as for us to change our
shoes and stockings. Changing a structure is in fact a
work of new creation, and changing an instinct is a feat
never accomplished except in a fairy tale, if even a fairy
tale has ever registered such an event. Perhaps in Mr
Thackeray's History of the Ring and the Rose something
like this is recorded, but that can scarcely be considered
authority for the facts of Natural History.

These transformations, slowly working out by fertility
producing sterility, were * for the benefit of the community.'
* Certain members of the community ' perceived this, and
so they agreed to have sterile grandchildren, and thus on
this public principle was the society at last established on

OPERATING IN INSTINCT, 75

a solid basis. The one female who was left fertile, whilst
thousands and tens of thousands around her had become
sterile, concentrated in her person the esteem and respect
of the whole society, and thus has Natural Selection con-
solidated ' the Realm of Bees.'

Having thus given us the authentic history of bees, Mr
Darwin goes on to the ants.

* But we have not as yet touched the climax of the diffi-
culty; namely, the fact that the neuters of several ants
diflfer, not only from the fertile females and males, but
from each other, sometimes to an almost incredible degree,
and are thus divided into two or three castes ' (260). De-
tails are then given of these striking differences, and in
one case we have it described thus : * The difference be-
tween them is the same as if we were to see a set of work-
men building a house, of whom many were five feet high,
and many sixteen feet high — but we must further suppose,
that the larger workmen had heads four times as big as
those of the smaller men, and jaws nearly five times as big.'
Here, indeed, is difference enough, but it is no obstacle to
the theory, as we see by the following words: *It will, in-
deed, be thought that I have an overweening confidence
in the principle of Natural Selection, when I do not admit
that such wonderful and well-established facts at once an-
nihilate my theory. In this case we may safely conclude
from the analogy of ordinary variations, that each succes-
sive, slight, profitable modification, did not probably at
first appear in all the neuters in the same nest, but in a few
alone ! and that by the long-continued selection of the fertile
parents which produced most neuters with the profitable
modification, all the neuters ultimately came to have the
desired character' (261).

76 NATURAL SELECTION

Surely we have an instance in this passage of the man-
ner in which the author habitually deceives himself. We
hear of * the principle of Natural Selection/ when, in fact,
it is no principle at all, but simply * the sequence of events '
according to the author s definition of the words. Let us,
then, here again substitute the definition for the metaphor.
' It will be thought I have an overweening confidence in
the Sequence of Events ' — if put thus, the illusion vanishes,
and the cloud of words is dissipated.

Here, however, the author personifies his metaphor more
determinately than usual. ' The long-continued selection
of the fertile parents : ' who selects them ? Natural Selec-
tion: and what is Natural Selection? the Sequence of
Events as observed by us. But by continual speaking of
Natural Selection in this way, by constantly personifying
the metaphor, the author presents it to us, and that repeat-
edly, as if it were an intelligent breeder of animals, exercis-
ing a clear judgment, and skilfully contriving to take ad-
vantage of every circumstance that might favour the object
it had in view. A phantom of words sustains a character,
and a figurative expression is turned into an omnipotent
workman.

But why need Mr Darwin trouble himself about 'a
climax of difficulty.' How can there be any climax in such
a system as this ? The theory that educes animated nature
from the spore of a sea-weed, and that * works in the tail
of a fish for all sorts of purposes,' till it becomes the tail of
a girafie or a monkey; that turns swim-bladders into
lungs, and branchiae into wings, with many more such
marvels, need not find a difficulty in any proposition.
Natural Selection can do anything which the imagina-
tion can possibly suggest. It has brought fishes out of

OPERATING IN INSTINCT. 77

the water to become terrestrial animals^ and has sent bears
to live in the sea. Delphinum silvis adpingit, fluctibus ur-
sum.

There can be, therefore, no climax of difficulty for this
thaumaturgic Metaphor.

CHAPTER VII.

NATURAL SELECTION IN THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE

HONEY-BEE.

The received opinion of all ages as to the principle of In-
stinct is in direct opposition with the dogmas of the theory.
What that theory teaches us on this subject we have now
seen ; and, as the aim of it is to get rid of the idea of a pre-
ordaining wisdom, arranging beforehand certain habits of
life for animals, either in a social or a solitary condition, and
adapting their organization for their pre-determined habits,
here it is we take our stand, and boldly affirm that instinct
is the result of pre-ordaining wisdom, and that certain
creatures act in a certain way for their own benefit, not be-
cause the Sequence of Events has brought them to act in
that way, but because they have been brought into exist-
ence so to act, and have no alternative but to act as they
do.

Certain species have appeared on the scene for a certain
object, and without their will or power of altering the
arrangement, certain germs of life derived from themselves
are developed, which inherit the qualities, faculties, and dis-
positions of the species, handing down to all ages the un-
alterable traditions of their race.

No animal can escape from the instinct of its species.

ARCHITECTURE OF THE HONEY-BEE. 79

nor can modify it ; the honey-bee always makes its honey
and the cx)mb to contain it by one invariable rule, and the
' bird always constructs its nest after one pattern ; the plan
and pattern of the garden-spider's web is always the same.

The polity of the honey-bee is the same that it was in
the days of Aristotle and of Homer, the same as in the age
of the Vedas, the same as in the most ancient figure of the
insect in the Egyptian Hieroglyphs, and the same as it was
ages before any intelligible record could refer to its exist-
ence.

To animals^ whose habits are not stationary, and whose
life is exposed to numberless^vicissitudes, instinct has been
given that by various provisions and contrivances they may
be enabled to guard their species from danger ; and by its
careful reproduction, accomplish the place in nature as-
signed to them. They are actors of a drama which they
must perform, and they come into the scene invested with
the qualities and the talents requisite for the part which
they must sustain.

In other words, instinct is creative power transmitted
to created beings, and it is for this reason and in conse-
quence of this origin of instinct that its manifestations re-
main unexplained. Creatures act in a certain wonderful
way by an impulse which we cannot understand. It is one
of those mysteries exhibited in nature which we must be
content to accept as an uninterpreted fact, just as we see
the magnetic needle turn to the pole, and cannot explain
it.*

The stronger animals, which are well-armed and have

* When a bee makes its nest geometrically, the geometry is not in the
bee, bat in that great Geometrician who made the bee, and made aU
things in number, weight, and measure. — Reid on the Active Powers, III.
p. 1, cap. 2.

80 NATURAL SELECTION IN THE

little to fear from other animals, have comparatively a
small heritage of instinct ; but when animals, which are
weak as individuals, have a great work to perform in social *
compact, they are endowed with manifold instinct, and are
sometimes formidable from their numbers.

Some animals, such as the rabbits, have a character of
sociability, but the work assigned to them is little more
than reproduction of their species. Their instinct, there-
fore, is insignificant.

The work chalked out for the ants, the vespidae, and the
bee is very great. They have to build a city, to sustain a
large society in perfect order, to rear a numerous popida-
tion, and to procure, by foraging, abundant provisions for
the community. Each insect viewed as an individual is
weak ; but when a multitude of them act in concert for
attack or defence, they are very formidable : and the in-
stinct that prevails amongst all, constitutes the safeguard
and welfare of all.

This instinct compels them to follow certain habits for
certain objects ; there is a distinct design in their polity,
resulting in a constitution of their state as clearly defined
as that of the demos of Athens, or the more complicated
government of Sparta, and far more fixed and certain than
our vaunted constitution, now unhappily in a state of tran-
sition from a moderated monarchy to an immoderate demo-
cracy.

It is probable that a principal object of the existence of
the honey-bee, is for the fructification of flowers; and
starting from this supposition, all the design would appear
to be harmonious. In order to produce the efiect, an in-
sect would be required whose sole food would be the nec-
tar of flowers ; the nectar so gathered is in the insect's

ARCHITECTURE OF THE HONEY-BEE. 81

stomach changed into honey, and regurgitated in its new
form in the store-houses. The store-house must be a vtYy
numerous aggregate of chambers for the numerous society ;
the material for constructing the store-chambers is ex-
tracted from the food itself, elaborated by an act of secret
chemistry. No chemist can produce wax out of honey,
but this the bee accomplishes, and thus the insects in pro-
curing their food, find also the material for their building.
The building is always progressing in warm cUmates, and
in temperate latitudes always during the summer months,
both to enlarge the city for the reception of its increasing
wealth, and for the wants of its increasing population.

The production of eggs, from which the whole popula-
tion springs, is confined to one female, the fountain of life
to the community.

Her sole occupation is reproduction of her species ; the
workers, therefore, imperfect females, are not burthened
with gestation, and are free for all the multiplied labours
of the city. They are labourers, builders, nurses, pur-
veyors, soldiers, sentinels. They are also scavengers and
ventilators of the city. The population is exceedingly
dense in prosperous circumstances and favourable seasons,
and the plan of the city is complicated, and the streets and
passages narrow, but all proceeds with order, decorum, and
regularity.

Even in the nests of wasps — a lair of free-booters — cour-
tesy and consideration prevail amongst the population, and
there is neither strife nor disorder within the precincts of
their abode. The laws of the community are sustained in
perfect harmony, and in all the bustle and crowding of a
dense hive there is a perfect plan of general action, though
the labours may be various, and many diflferent objects

82 NATURAL SELECTION IN THE

require their attention. It would be well for our cities and
towns if a numerous police and vigilant magistracy could
secure the public order as perfectly as in a bee-hive.

In the bee-hive there is no police, because every indi-
vidual of the community keeps the peace by keeping itself
in its proper place and attending to its duties. A strong
impression of duty is one of the most striking manifesta-
tions of the instinct of the bee. There is no idleness, no
robbery, no infraction of law, no resistance of authority.
Each citizen contributes to the harmony of the whole, and
all the community respect the queen-mother with most
loyal attachment and devotedness.

The more there is to be done, the happier the bees are ;
industry is the joy of their existence, and that industry is
exercised not for individual gratification, excepting as far
as the contributing to the general welfare may be con-
sidered their reward.

At such a scene as this, Natural Selection must look
with a malignant eye, for if it cannot calumniate and depre-
ciate the realm of bees, the occupation of the Metaphor is
gone, and it must betake itself to that limbo, large and
broad, whither all things transitory and vain mount up as
to their proper home.

We have seen how in the history furnished us by the
theory, the bees have come to be divided into their actual
ranks, and how the neuters have been brought into their
present form by Natural Selection. We have now to con-
sider the explanation ojffered us of the architecture of the
honey-bee.

Mr Darwin's statement on this subject is given at great
length, but the following may be taken as a correct epitome
of what he says. He divides the architectural tendencies

AROHITECTURE OF THE HONEY-BEE, 83

of the bees into three classes; the lowest that of the
homble-bee, the next in advance the structure of the
Mexican Mellipona, and the highest and most perfect the
cells of the bee-hive. The humble-bee makes use of its
old cocoons^ adding thereto irregular rounded cells of wax.
The Mellipona forms a regular waxen comb of cylindrical
cells, in which the young are hatched, and in addition,
some large cells of wax for holding honey. These latter
ceUs are nearly spherical, and of nearly equal sizes, and
aggregated together in an irregular mass. The spherical
walls, when they come in contact, do not intersect, for the
bees build perfectly flat walls of wax between the spheres,
which thus 'tend * to intersect.

On this state of the case it occurred to Mr Darwin, * (1 )
that IF the Mellipona had made its spheres at some given
distance from each other, and (2) had made them of equal
sizes, and (8) had arranged them symmetrically, and in
(4) a double layer, the resulting structure would probably
have been as perfect as the comb of the hive-bee.' This
proposition (containing four assumptions), he sent to
Professor Miller, of Cambridge, who returned him an an-
swer, in regular algebraic and geometric language, that the
result would be a structure, both in form and accuracy,
identical with the cells of the hive-bee.

When we state our own case to a lawyer, in our own
point of view and according to our wishes, it is very pro-
bable that we may have a formal opinion, highly encourag-
ing for our law-suit. We have seen the statement of the
case, — the comment of the author on it is characteristic.

'Hence we may safely conclude, if we could slightly
MODIFY THE INSTINCTS already possessed by the Mellipona,
and in themselves not very wonderful, the bees would make

84 NATURAL SELECTION IN THE

a structure as wonderfully perfect as that of the hive-
bee. We must suppose the Mellipona to make her cells
truly spherical, and of equal sizes (two assumptions), and
this would not be very surprising, seeing that she does so
already to a certain extent, and seeing what perfectly
cylindrical burrows in wood many insects can make, ap-
parently, by turning round on a fixed point. We must sup-
pose the Mellipona to arrange her cells in level layers
(another assumption), as she already does her cylindrical
cells ; and we must further suppose (fourth assumption)
that she can somehow accurately judge at what dis-
tance to stand from her fellow-labourers when several are
making their spheres, — we have further to suppose (fifth
assumption) — but this is no difficulty — that after hexagonal
prisms have been formed by the intersection of adjoining
spheres in the same layer, she can prolong the hexagon to
any length requisite to hold the stock of honey. By such
modifications of instinct, in themselves not very wonder-
ful, hardly more wonderful than those which guide a bird
to make its nest, I believe that the hive-bee has acquired,
through Natural Selection, her inimitable architectural
powers.'

To leave nothing unexplained, Mr Darwin remarks : * The
work of construction seems to be a sort of balance struck
between many bees, all instinctively standing at the same
relative distance from each other, all trying to sweep equal
spheres, and then building up, or leaving unguarded the
planes of intersection between the spheres ' (247).

The Honey-bee then by this statement is, in fact, a Mexi-
can Mellipona performing pirouettes, and trying to sweep
equal spheres. Natural Selection has brought the Melli-
pona, after changing the whole constitution of the com-

ARCHITECTURE OF THE HONEY-DEE, 85

munity, to become a skilful architect by striking imaginary
circles ; and in order to simplify the making of a hexagon^
has taught it to execute the plan by intersecting circles,
and building up the planes of intersection, which seems a
strange way of making her problem more simple. It cer-
tainly presupposes no small degree of geometrical know-
ledge to hit on such a plan, to say nothing of other diffi-
cidties.

But here, as usual, a magical transformation of an
animal is taken for granted as most easy to be effected.
'We may safely suppose,' says the author, 'that if we
could slightly modify the instincts of the Mellipona, that
insect would produce a structure as perfect and beautiful
as the comb of the hive.' Certainly, if we could effect this,
we could perform wonders; we could then be able to
change the whole economy of nature, and should surpass
in skill the wizards of Egypt, or the magicians of the
Arabian Nights Entertainments. Slightly modify the in-
stincts of a sheep, and that modification by giving it more
courage would be for its benefit, and put this modification
into the hands of Natural Selection, and in due time the
sheep might become a wolf.

But observe, it is deemed nothing wonderful in this
theory, that a Mellipona should make such cells as she
does, which, though inferior to those of the hive-bee, would
ordinarily be considered as marvellously skilful contriv-
ances for an insect ; and the instinct which prompts the
birds to build their curious and beautiful nests, is spoken
of with a sort of contempt, as if it were easily to be ex-
plained, and more easy to be accomplished, though it is
very doubtful whether all the skill of man could exactly
imitate some nests of the more refined and complex fabrics.

86 NATURAL SELECTION IN THE

To some minds such passages as the above will appear
perfectly amazing ; that, especially in a scientific disquisi-
tion, in which one naturally expects a rigorous attention to
facts, such preposterous suppositions and dreams should
be brought forward, as the foundation of a systematic
exegesis of nature ; and that on a long series of assumptions,
all purely imaginary and incapable of proof, an argument
should be built up for cancelling creation.

It is, however, the impatience of a supreme Intellect,
* ordering all things well,' which manifestly has prompted
the above explanation, for the author introduces the sub-
ject thus : ' We hear from mathematicians that bees have
practically solved a recondite problem, and have made the
cells of the proper shape to. hold the greatest possible
amount of honey, with the least possible consumption of
precious wax in their construction — . . . Grant whatever
instincts you please, and it seems at first quite inconceiv-
able how they can make all the necessary planes and angles,
or even perceive when they are correctly made — ^but the
difficulty is not nearly so great as it first appears,' — and
then follows what we have already seen.

Just so, it is quite inconceivable how the bees can make
all the necessary planes and angles. It is quite incon-
ceivable how the spider should know how to construct his
web ; it is quite inconceivable how the tailor-bird should
have learned to sew together leaves for her nest with the
regular seamstress' art, it is quite inconceivable how the
beavers should have learned to build their houses, and
make their dams, should have acquired the art of cutting
down timber for architectural purposes — and so of a thou-
sand other such instances. We affirm that we cannot
know how all this is efiected, instinct is a mystery emanat-

ARCHITECTURE OF THE HONEY-BEE, 87

ing from the supreme Geometrician, the supreme Intellect ;
certain animals are instruments for executing a certain
plan assigned to them, and that is all we can say on the
sabject. We see their work, and can only admire it, — in
many instances we never can equal it, in some we cannot
imitate it, and in no case can we explain how the animal
is guided by that instinct which is the object of our ad-
miration.

There are certain barriers to our knowledge which we
never can surmount, there are questions in which we must
be content to be always ignorant. In the legitimate path
of science, by patient investigation, immense wealth of
knowledge is to be obtained ; but if we attempt to break
forth into regions unfitted for our mental faculties, dis-
comfiture and shanie will be all that we shall obtain.

We have, moreover, to make serious objections to the
imaginary series of experimental architecture amongst bees,
as if the first sketch of it began with rude cells of the
humble-bee, and had gone on by progressive perfection to
the hive-bee. This of course is part of the theory which
supposes that nature has always been changing, and is
still undergoing mutation, in ceaseless instability, as if
nothing had yet been settled by any definite arrangement.
To that supposition we ofier an answer in the general
arguments of these pages, but in the mean time we affirm
that it is a great mistake to suppose that all the varieties
of the bees, each* in its proper sphere, are not fulfilling the

• Linn»a8 has enumerated 35 species of the genus Apis. Mr Kirby, in
bis Monographia Apium*Angli8B,ha8 described above 220, natives of Eng-
land. In Guadaloupe the bees are without stings, and form no combs ;
they enclose their honey in waxen cells of the figure and size of pigeon's
egga, but more pointed. If the hollow of the tree in which they fix them-
selves should be too large for their purposes, they form a dome of wax, and
work under the structure.

88 NATURAL SELECTION IN THE

duties assigned to them. The designs of Nature are often
beyond our comprehension for their number alone, and it
is astonishing to observe what multitudes of species have
been placed in existence, with a sunilar purpose, to be ob-
tained by various methods. The infinitely varied, and
often infinitely minute, operations of the great workshop of
Nature are apportioned to myriads of workers, each capable
of performing its task with accuracy and perfection, and
adapted by organization and instinct to obtain complete
success in the line of its prescribed duty. To execute
every idea of Nature, vast multitudes'of able-bodied labour-
ers are put on her lists, and there is not one of them that
does more or less than was intended. She has armies of
builders and armies of destroyers ; for to repress the re-
dundancy of production is as much her object as to en-
courage the multiplication of life. The entomologist
Ratzeburg enumerates 650 species of insects injurious to
the forests of Germany alone, and each of these species
would be a study for a careful physiologist.*

We must not, therefore, despise the humble-bee, nor
' hear with a disdainful smile the annals ' of her simple life.
She has a sphere of existence assigned, and if she does all
required of her, she may be as much respected as the cot-
tager of her race, as the hive-bee is admired as the archi-
tect and burgess of a stately city. The Mellipona and the
hive-bee have their mission to perform, and a range of ob-
ligation which they never exceed ; and we may be quite
sure that the Mellipona has as little chance of rising superior

* An innumerable army of dung-beetles and stercoraceous flies, of anU
and termites, is constantly at work removing the decaying subetanceii
which otherwise would pollute the atmosphere. — Homes without Hands.

ARCHITECTURE OF THE HONEYBEE. 89

to its present condition, as the African negro has of taking
precedence of European intellect.

But we must return awhile to the details of the archi-
tecture of the hive-bee. We have seen that geometricians
of repute have been consulted on a problem of intersecting
spheres producing hexagons at the intersection, &c. ; and
we have, also, seen how that problem was stated, so as to
be applicable to an imaginary state of things, having no
real existence, and to be found only in the siu'mises and
suppositions of the Theory. This is not the first time that
the bees have had this compliment paid them, that their
architecture has been tested by the rules of geometry, and
examined by the ablest mathematicians of the day. The
result' has always been, that geometry has confirmed the
calculations on which their architecture has been executed,
to whatever quarter those calculations have been traced.
But in this case Mr Darwin seems, unwittingly, to pay them
a higher compliment than usual, for he either supposes
that the bees intend to make hexagons by striking imagin-
ary intersecting circles, or that the hexagon is produced
by that exercise of their imagination. * It suffices,* says
he, ' that bees should be enabled to stand at the proper
relative distances, and form the walls of the last completed
cells, and then by striking imaginary spheres,' &c. (253).
We have also seen that ' they are somehow to know the
proper distance,' and all the rest will follow.

Now to us it appears, that if carpenters or bricklayers
were about to construct hexagonal chambers, and were for
that purpose to go into the dark and strike imaginary
spheres, at the proper distances, which they were somehow
to ascertain without measuring, they would be a very curi-

90 NATURAL SELECTION IN THE

ous race of Laputan builders, acting on abstract principles
to begin with, and still more marvellous if their unusual
plan should turn out successful.

If Mr Darwin should urge, that the hexagon is not an
intention bat a result, that the intention is the circle, and
the accidental production a hexagon, then the bee imagtMS
the circles, which it never really sweeps, knows when to
stop where an imaginary circle meets an imaginary circle,
and builds its walls on the points of contact of two or more
dreams.

But let the case be put still more clearly. The bees
work in ignorance of what they are doing ; at least, Mr
Darwin says so ; at any rate, they do not understand
geometry, in this we should all a^ee. But philosophers,
men of science, are adepts m geometry, and by algebraic
calculations can make great discoveries. To test, there-
fore, the value of the comprehensive 'somehow' of this
supposition, let us suppose that six scientific Transmuta-
tionists are locked up in a room perfectly dark ; to each is
to be given a piece of chalk, and they are to arrange them-
selves as they like by striking imaginary (not real) circles
in order to draw a superficial hexagon on the floor. As soon
as they are satisfied with their exploit, the figure they have
drawn is to be sent to Professor Miller, of Cambridge, who
will measure the angles and report thereon. What sort of
a figure should we have by the joint-labours of the six
learned gentlemen ? Who will venture to describe its ex-
quisite and accurate proportions ?

Though this is but a partial illustration of the work of
the bees, which with them is much more than a superficial
hexagon, it may serve to show the value of this part of the
theory.

ARCHITECTURE OF THE HONEY-BEE. 91

•

We might here inquire if Mr Darwin is disposed to ex-
tend this explanation of the hexagonal architecture to the
wasps also, for with them there is no Mellipona Mexicana to
suggest a transition of architectural skill : neither would
the Cambridge problem apply to their case, as their cells
are in simple rows, and not placed base to base as with the
bees. The wasps, however, construct accurate hexagons
for their cells, and of another material : do they also sweep
imaginary circles, and build up the planes of intersection
of their dreams ?

It would be extending this discussion to an unreason-
able length, to enter into a full explanation of the real mode
of operation observed by the bees in constructing their cells.
This is to be seen in Reaumer, Huber, and Kirby and
Spence. We may generally state that the bees begin their
labours of cell-making by forming the hoses of the cells first,
and that when a pyramidal base of three lozenges is finish-
ed, they then build up the walls from its edges. This
shows their intention — ^they know what they have to do be-
fore they begin ; but how they know, and how they con-
struct the bases according to the proper angles, will never
be explained. They accomplish the work, and we must
be content with the fact.

In particular circumstances, however, they are able to
diversify the work according to the need, and the bees then
introduce such variations of the general rule as the case
seems to demand. Thus the first rows of cells of the comb,
affixed to the top of the hives, are made, not as hexagons,
but in the form of a pentagon, and for this there is a good
reason. This we learn from Huber. * It is evident,' says
he, ' that the hexagonal figure of cells admits of this ap-
plication by only one angle to the surface of the roof.

92 NATURAL SELECTION IN THE

where many are ranged laterally, but there must be large
vacuities between the angles. But a more solid fixture
becomes the marked solicitation of nature in the fonnation
of the combs. The first row of cells, that by which the
whole comb is attached to the roof of the hive, differs from
all the rest, instead of hexagon, the orifice is a pentagon.
The cell consists of four sides, with the roof of the hive in
the plane of the fifth. The bottom, also, is different from
that of common cells; only one of these pieces is a lozenge,
the other two is of an irregular quadrilateral figure. By
the simple dispositions preserved here, the stability of the
comb is completely secured, for it touches 'the interior
surface of support in the hive in the greatest possible num-
ber of points.'

Here, then, there is no ideal intersection of spheres ; the
pentagon dissipates all that vision, and it is clear that the
bees intend to introduce the hexagon, as soon as, in their
judgment, they can do so with safety. We need only to
inspect a large comb to see how the theory of imaginary
circles is confuted, by the management of the cells in case
of any obstruction to the work, or even in the introduction
of the larger cells of the drones. Cells with larger dimen-
sions for the drones have to be worked into the general
plan, and this is done by gradual change of the dimensions
of the neighbouring cells, tiU at last the symmetrical mea-
surement of the general design is perfectly restored.

In cases of obstruction by intervening obstacles, some-
times placed to test their skill, they find themselves com-
pelled to alter the hexagonal regularity in order to work
round the obstacle, hence some of the cells are of irregular
form, but always returning by gradations to the regular
symmetry and correct shape of the normal design.

ARCHITECTURE OF THE HONEY-BEE, 93

This again is proof of their object, to adhere to the cor-
rect hexagonal pattern and the rhomboidal base. The plan
is imprinted m their minds, so to speak ; the pattern is in
mysterious vision before them, and they build according to
the plan they have received, by a necessity of their nature.

This is their instinct, and it is as admirable as it is in-
explicable.

These remarks should not be closed without noticing
that though Mr Darwin makes the bees execute a very
hard problem, and for a direct purpose, to secure the
greatest economy of wax, he neither allows this to be the
result of an instinct, nor will he permit it to be a design
or intention of the bees themselves. In what quarter then
is the motive or the calculation ? It is, as usual, with the
great Pan, Natural Selection, the true Antitheos of the
author's system. ' The bees, of course, no more know that
they swept their spheres {imaginary, be it observed) at one
particular distance from each other, than they know what
are the several angles of the hexagonal prisms and of the
basal rhombic plates. The motive-power of the process of
Natural Selection (sequence of events) having been economy
of wax, together with cells of due strength, and of the
proper size and shape for the larvae ; that individual swarm
which made the best cells, and wasted least honey in the
secretion of wax, having succeeded best, and having trans-
mitted by inheritance their newly-acquired econonomical
instincts to new swarms, these in their turn will have had
the best chance of succeeding in the struggle for existence.
* Beyond this stage of perfection in architecture, Natural
Selection could not lead ; for the comb of the hive-bee, as
far as we can see, is absolutely perfect in economizing wax'
(255).

94 NATURAL SELECTION IN THE

Natural Selection, therefore— a perfect geometrician — ^led
the bees to adopt a perfect design of architectural skill.
Doubtless, long before the Silurian era. Sequence of Events
was Senior Wrangler in the year that the primal Spore
took its degree.

But is all this really written in earnest? and is the
author not trifling with us ? Does he soberly and seriously
mean us to believe this fantastic fable ? A swarm starting
with a new batch of instincts ! A queen, producing, some
day, twenty thousand eggs issuing in bees inclined to strike
imaginary spheres ! and then the new pirouette breed sus-
tained by queens with the new faculty to produce the new
instincts! and thus at last economy triumphing over all
obstacles.

Certain it is, that if Natural Selection can ' lead ' to the
striking of imaginary spheres, it can also lead learned men
to strike out into the wildest freaks of imagination that
ever yet were heard of.

But on what facts is based this theory of the struggle
for existence ? who or what struggles for life with the bees ?
Each bee, of each variety, gets on very well in its line of
life : the Mellipona does not fail, and as far as we know,
wants nothing; and the Humble-bee, the constructor of
rude cells, and of rough unsymmetrical architecture, pros-
pers everywhere, as we have an opportunity of observing ;
why then was it requisite to concoct the new order of
architects ? If the old varietes were well to do in the world,
where was this struggle for their existence ; where was the
need to introduce any improvement in order to enable
them to live and to surmount the obstacles to their exist-
ence?

This struggle for existence, which the author has in-

ABGHITECTURE OF THE HONEY-BEE. 95

formed us, is to be taken in a large metaphorical sense, is
in fact a mere jingle of words ; it comes in to round the
paragraphs and to help its brother metaphor, Natural Selec-
tion, in any of its great achievements. Twin brothers
they are, of one family and one disposition.

Arcades ambo,
Et cantare pares, et respondere parati.

How wise, then, after these portentous speculations, ap-
pear the words of a great philosopher 1

'The main business of natural philosophy is to argue
from phenomena m^^^^^i^nm^ hypotheses ^ and to deduce
causes from effects, till we come to the First Cause, which
is certainly not mechanical/ — (Newton.)

CHAFrER VIII.

THE TRANSMUTATION SCHOOL.

The attempt has frequently been made to describe or
explain the origin of life on our globe, but in every instance
the result has been a signal failure. In nature's first
labours no midwife was present, and they who could per-
suade us that they know the mysteries of her secret cham-
ber, are all sooner or later detected as vain pretenders.
History has here no information to give us; science can
afford us no help ; but rather, by enlarging our knowledge
of the complexities of organization, and the multiplicity of
their relations, increase our astonishment at the vastness
of the subjects which have to be explained. We can only
hope to describe things as they actually are, and to inter-
pret their design ; and in doing this, scrupulously and faith-
fully, we shall always have our hands full ; but if we woidd
go on to explain by what method and by what particular
adaptations of matter animated beings were first endowed
with form and life, we descend to the low level of the char-
latan, and return to the obsolete pretensions of the alche-
mist and magician. Whenever the attempt is seriously
made, we perceive that it is mainly by the instrumentality
of verbal inaccuracies, by the free use of expressions of a
large and indefinite meaning, by analogical and metaphori-

THE TRANSMUTATION SCHOOL. 97

cal appliances to establish facts, by bold inventions of
phenomena which have no existence in nature, and by fre-
quently taking for granted the proposition to be proved.

These are the expedients of the modern school ; but in
remoter, days the exposition was by mythos, presented as a
sacred tradition for the acceptance of faith, and not meant
as a physiological system for examination and approbation.

One of the most ancient and most popular theories
taught that all creatures were formed out of the earth, by
itself, and that in dying they returned to their parent, as
is well expressed in a verse of Lucretius.

Omniparens eadem rerum commune sepulchrum.

The Epicureans spoke as if they thought that the earth
had originally created animals ; Lucretius, the interpreter of
that school, says of the earth that it has grown effete, and
that she who first created all races, and gave forth the
great beasts, now scarcely creates very little animals.

Jamque adeo fracta est tetas, efibetaque Tellus
Vix animal ia parva creat, qu8B cuncta creavit
ScDcla, deditque ferarum ingentia corpora partu (ii. 1150).

He also attributes to the earth the creation of the human
race, and says that all terrestrial animals, as well as the
birds, owe their birth to her, who therefore justly receives
the title * of mother.

In the infancy of knowledge this opinion could scarcely
be avoided : the earth seems to produce all trees and plants,
and some animals also ; moreover, as no other solid sub-
stance but the earth seemed at hand, out of which solid

* Quare etiam atque etiara matemum nomcn adepta
Terra tenet merito, quoniain genus ipsa creavit
Hunianum, atque animal prope certo tempore fudit
Omne, quod in magnis bacchatur montibu' passim,
Aerias que simul volucres variantibu' fonuis (v. 820).

98 THE TRANSMUTATION SCHOOL.

bodies could be made, they extended this obvious principle
of creation to all animated nature. Hence animals and
men were made out of the soil ; and yet, as no creation of
an animal had ever been witnessed, and as all the known
races were of an antiquity vastly beyond any record or
tradition, they supposed that the earth had now grown old,
and having ceased to produce anything new, liad lost her
original fecundity.

This simple creed was not presented with any logical
finesse. There was no disquisition about the meaning of
creation, no subtle disputes about cause and effect, no per-
plexities about mind and matter, no chemical research into
first elements, and no attempt to account for the modus
operandi. It was the act of Tellus, or of Nature, and there
tliey left it.

In these days the word ' creation ' has become suspicions
to the scientific world, and is scarcely tolerated ; but in
the classical age, and even in a sceptical school, it was
freely used. The motive of this modern sensitiveness is
obvious ; it originates in a desire to assume ' a free position,'
as it is called, that is, independent of the least suspicion
of biblical influence.

Long, however, before the Scriptures had any footing in
Europe, very long, indeed, before they had ever been heard
of out of the boundaries of Syria, many believed that a su-
preme intellect had effected the great work of creation.

Anaxagoras, in the fifth century before the Christian
era, is said to have been the first of the Greek philosophers
who distinctly taught this. He was the first who intro-
duced Mind for the distribution of matter ; for in the be-
giiming of his work, which is beautifully and magnificently
composed, lie snys : ^ All things were commingled, then

THE TRANSMUTATION SCHOOL, 99

came in Mind, and separated and arranged them.' * And
Aristotle tells us f that * he made Mind, the beginning of
all things, sa)ring that it alone, of all things, was simple,
nncompounded, and pure. And to this beginning he at-
tributes both knowledge and action, or the first movement,
saying that Mind moved everything.'

This was the next step in advance : design argued a de-
signer, and as they saw many excellent contrivances, many
wonderful calculations, and proofs of surpassing knowledge
in the works of nature, they came to the conclusion that a
presiding Intellect was the author of all things. And to
these limits, the question at issue may now be restrained.
It is not requisite in disputing with the Transmutationists
to go beyond the ancient battle-field, where the Stoics con-
tended with the Epicureans, and where of old they fought
the battle of mind against matter. The whole question is
whether there be a design and a designer in the works of
nature. I have no wish to push the inquiry beyond these
limits.

In Cicero's admirable book on the nature of the gods,
we find that the Epicureans held precisely the fundamental
principle of the Transmutationists. In that work, Cotta,
speaking to Velleius the Epicurean, says : * You deny that
reason had any share in the formation of things,' — (nihil
enim in rerum natura ratione factum esse vultis, i. 32).

We have seen how carefully this doctrine is insisted on
by Mr Darwin in his Origin of Species, and it is obvious
that this mmt be sustained as the foundation for the whole
superstructure of the theory.

▼CKKra XphiJiOTa fiv oytov, eira Novc iXSuty avra ^lek'otrjjTjffc*
genes Laert. ii. 6.)

(Diogenes Laert. ii. 6.)
f Aristot. de Anim^, i. 2.

100 THE TRAXSMUTATION SCHOOL.

The Stoics had various thoughts about the creative
power, but they all held that it was intellectual and divine.
Zeno held * that the law of nature was divine, and that it
had the power to force us to what is right, and to restrain
us from what is wrong — and the words of Seneca, the fa-
mous exponent of stoical morality, show us exactly the
thoughts of his school on this subject. * Whosoever,' f
says he, ' was the former of the universe, whether it is that
all-powerful Deity, or incorporeal Reason, that is the arti-
ficer of the great works, or the Divine Spirit diffused
through all the greatest and the least of things, with an
equal intention.'

The whole question, therefore, with the ancients, was
the same as that which is now the subject of debate,
whether Mind has invented and organized all things, or
whether the autoplastic actions of irrational matter have
elaborated the universe and its contents.

Now the Stoical side of the question is that of common
sense, by the simple argument that a machine must have

^ Zeno naturalem legem diviuain cshc censet, camqnc vim obtinere recta
iinperaiileiii prohibculenique contraria. De Nat. Deormn, 14.

f Quimjuis forinator universi fuit, sive ille deus est potens omnium,
sive incorporalis Ratio ingeutium operum artifex, sive divinus spiritus
per omnia maxima minima asquali intentioue difTusus. (Cousolat. ad
llelv. 8.)

Enough has been said in the text to explain the difTcrent tenets of the
two ancient schools on the origin of things ; it may, nevertheless, be inter-
esting to hear Cicero's more extended account of the Stoic Doctrine, ' that
universal nature, which embraces all things, is said by Zeno to be not only
artificial, but absolutely the artificer, ever thinking and providing all
things useful and proper ; and as every particular nature owes its rise
and increase to its own proper seed, so universal Nature has all her motions
voluntary, has affections and desires, productive of actions agreeable to
them, like us, who have sense and understanding to direct us. Such is
the intelligence of the uuivei*se.' (Nat. Deorum. xxii.) Hero universal
Nature and the Intelligence of the universe are obviously the divinity, ap-
proximating to Pantheism —

Mens agitat molem, et magno se cor])orc miscet.

THE TRANSMUTATION SCROOL. 101

been designed by a mechanician, that a watch must have
been made by a watch-maker ; though, at the same time, it
is possible to avoid this conclusion, as regards the produc-
tions of nature, by having recourse to the system of Bud-
dhism, which ignores Creation and a Creator by a Pantheistic
creed, considering Nature itself and everything that is in
Nature divine and eternal, and therefore without commence-
ment as identified with the Deity itself. To some it might
appear that this* is the most skilful contrivance to avoid the
idea of a creation, for though it is not tenable in close rea*
soning, yet it is the most plausible of all the plans that
deny creation, and is considered satisfactory by many mil-
lions of the human race. It is however very far from the
European mode of thought, being strictly characteristic of
the oriental sphere of philosophy, and can never be made
to approximate to our physiological inquiries.

With such mysterious speculations modem science has
no sympathy ; the current tends in the opposite direction,
to find in irrational matter the power of self-creation
without reason, and to ignore every possible phase of a
demiurgic existence.

Writers of this class must frequently be reduced to the
necessity of using a language that contradicts their theory,
for in treating of the apparatus of nature it is impossible
to repudiate the idea of design altogether, as the intention
of certain contrivances is so manifest as to be beyond the
possibility of doubt. No one therefore ever did, or ever

• I have somewhere read, Uiat in the kingdom of Burmah within the
last twenty years some learned men — aix 1 think in number — were put to
death by the king for teaching the imjnous doctrine of a Creator. To us this
seems a strange use of the word * impiety ' — but in the Pantheistic creed
the idea of a Creator will appear impious, for if it be accepted as certain
that the Universe and the Deity are identical, it must seem impious to talk
of creating such a universe.

102 THE TRANSMUTATION SCHOOL.

could discourse at length of nature without admitting
occasionally the idea of intention, and of certain objects
obtained by certain expedients ; but in the strictly Material
School this ought not to be, as the first proposition of the
sect is that all things are made without design, and are as
we see them to be simply because they are so. Nevertheless
all the disciples of all the Material Schools are continually
lapsing hito the language of their opponents, and though
they are always ' driving out " Nature " with a fork,* yet is
she always returning upon them again, and * her object,*
* her designs/ &c., again and again make their appearance,
with an occasional protest that no real meaning is to be
attached to such expressions, which are used in * a wide
metaphorical sense ' easily understood.

* I consider,' said Cabanis, in speaking of the provisions
for the reproduction of animals, — ^ I consider, with the great
Bacon, the philosophy of final causes is sterile, but 1 have
elsewhere acknowledged that it was extremchj difficult for
the most cautious man never to have recourse to them in
his explanations.' And Dr WhcwcU has well obser\ed,
'though the physiologist may persuade himself that he
ought never to refer to final causes, we find that practi-
cally he cannot help it, and that the event shows that his
practical habit is right and well-founded.'

Saint Hilaire, a celebrated authority of the Antithcistic
School, has said : * 1 ascribe no intention to God, for I mis-
trust the feeble powers of my reason ; I obsenx facts mere-
ly, and go no farther ; I only pretend to the character of
ivhat is ; I cannot make Nature as an intelligent behig —
who does nothing in vain, who acts by the shortest mode,
who does all for the best.'

A testimony which is well worth remembering, for wc

THE TRANSMUTATION SCHOOL. 103

see that Saint Hilaire considers those who thus speak of
Nature as virtually giving her the attributes of God ; this,
however, is precisely the language used by some French
writers, his successors, and disciples too of the School of
Transmutation ; they make Nature an Intelligent being,
with an object or intention, which they so expressly desig-
nate. Of this we shall ere long see an example.

Neither is this prohibited language avoided by Mr Dar-
win, as the antecedent pages have already shown. Other
more striking examples \fill hereafter be adduced.

The term Nature with many of the ancient philosophers,
and especially with those of the Stoical School, was simply
intended as another designation of God ; and we ourselves
profess to use the word in that sense too, out of respect to
the Author of Nature whom we do not name, as Cuvier has
well expressed it. Nature with us means an Intelligent
Agent : it is not a figure of speech only * difficult to avoid,'
but a reverential expression cheerfully embraced.

Until the eighteenth century the Mosaic Economy was
the undisputed authority in Europe for all discussions on
the Origin of Life on our globe. Biology was a revelation,
and when the science of geology began, it first started from
a revelation. About the beginning of the last century, a
French author, De Maillet, composed a work to explain the
Origin of Life without any regard to the established opinions.
llis first proposition was, that at one time the earth had
been entirely covered with water, and that, therefore, the
first animals must have been aquatic — must have been
fishes. When the watei's retired, the fishes underwent
metamorphoses. (We should suggest that they diedy as is
the manner of fishes when left on dry land.) The fishes
which keep to the bottom of the waters, creeping amongst

104 THE TRANSMUTATION SCHOOL.

the mud, became reptiles ; those which occasionally rise
above the waters became flying animals, their fins were
turned into wings, their scales into feathers ; and, in one
word, mammifers, and man himself, came into existence
from this aquatic origin. De Maillet's work was pub-
lished about the year 1748, shortly after the author's death.
Twenty years later, Robinet published a book entitled
^ JSssais de la Nature qui apprend a faire Vhomme*
Ex)binet makes Nature his agent, which he freely personi-
fies. Nature, according to him, commenced with creating
worms, then insects. Later, she made a bold step/ and
fabricated the crustaceans. Then she placed inwards the
external plates of the crustaceans, and made vertebrse of
them — thence came the serpent. After the serpent the
lizard ; the front part of the lizard was transformed into
wings — from thence the bird. And thus, progressively.
Nature formed the quadrupeds, the quadrumanous animals,
and last of all man.

I know not that any other writer followed in this track
till j\I. Lamarck* appeared, who, with a greatly superior
genius and much scientific knowledge, stood forth as the
great exponent of the Theory of Transmutation.

M. Lamarck derives all animals from a monad, though
what might be the nature of the monad we do not leani.
From the monad the next step was to the Polypus : * inf

* Jcnn Baptisto Monnet de Lamarck was born in Picardie, 1744, and
died at Paris, 1829. Appointed professor of Zoology during the Revolu-
tion, he developed in the course of his lectures his curious system. This
he published, * Extrait du cours de Zoologie du museum d^histoirc na-
turelle ' in 1812; and also in his * Ilistoire dos animaux sans vertebres,*
1815, in seven volumes. Towards the end of his life, this learned man
became quite blind.

t Au moyen des efforts qu*il s'impose, et des habitudes qu*il prend, le
polype sc donna successivement toutes Ics fonncs jusipfaux plus ulcvccs.

THE TRANSMUTATION SCHOOL, 105

consequence of the eflForts which the Polypus imposed on
itself, and the habits which it assumed/ the Polypus gave
itself, successively, all forms of life even the most elevated.

The exercise of habit, and the eflfort at action, is the
transforming power in Lamarck's system ; animals have
aimed at certain faculties and functions, and thus have ob-
tained them — a process by which they have gradually be-
come new animals. He has, however, other agents for his
system of Transmutation — * efforts of internal sentiment /
' influence of subtile fluids,' and * acts of organization :'
the usual cloud of words with which an empirical writer
surrounds himself, when treating of the essence of his sys-
tem. Lyell well observes, that in using these phrases * he
substitutes names for things, and with a disregard to the
strict rules of induction, resorts to fictions as ideal as tlie
plastic virttie, and other phantoms of the geologists of the
middle ages.'

But to proceed with the system. It being assumed as
an imdoubted fact, that a change of extenial circumstances
may cause one organ to become entirely obsolete, and a
new one to be developed, such as never before belonged to
the species, the following proposition is announced, which,
however absiu*d it may seem, is logically deduced from
the assumed premises.* It is not the organs, or, in other
words, the nature and form of the parts of the body of an
animal, which have given rise to its habits and its particu-
lar faculties ; but on the contrary, its habits, its manner of

♦ This fundamental principle of his system, Lamarck expressed in these
words : —

*L*babitude d'exercer un orgaiie, lui fait acquerirdes developpements et
des dimensions qui le changent insensiblement, en sorte qu'avec le temps
elle le rend fort different. Au contraire le defant constant d'excrcise d'un
organe Tappauvrit graducllement et tinit par Tancantir.'

106 THE TRANSMUTATION SCHOOL.

living, and those of its progenitors have, in the course of time,
determined the form of its body, the number and condition
of its organs — in short, the faculties which it enjoys. The
ottere, beavers, water-fowl, turtles and frogs were not made
web-footed in order that they might swim ; but their wants
having attracted them to the water in search of prey, they
stretched out the toes of their feet to strike the water and
move rapidly along the surface. By the repeated stretch-
ing of their toes, the skin which united them at the base
acquired a habit of extension, until, in the course of time,
the broad membranes which now connect their extremi-
ties were formed.

In like manner, the antelopes and gazelles, in order to
escape from the carnivorous animals, were compelled to
exert themselves in running with greater speed ; a habit
which in the course of ages gave rise to the slendemess of
their legs, and the agility and elegance of their forms.

The canielopard was not gifted with a long flexible neck
because it was destined to live in the interior of Africa,
where the soil was devoid of herbage ; but being reduced
to live on the foliage of lofty trees, it contracted a habit of
stretching itself to reach the higher boughs, until its neck
was elongated, and its fore legs became much longer than
the hinder, so that at last it could raise its head twenty
feet from the ground.*

Nature, we are told, is not an Intelligence, nor the Deity,
but a delegated power ; a mere instrument — a piece of me-
chanism acting by necessity — an order of things constitut-
ed by the Supreme Being, and subject to laws which are
the expression of his will. This Nature is obliged to pro-
ceed gradually in all her operations — she cannot produce

• LyeHs AnalyBis of Lamarck.

THE TRANSMUTATION SCHOOL. 107

animals and plants of all classes all at once, but must
always begin by the formation of the most simple kinds,
and out of them elaborate the more complex, adding dif-
ferent systems of organs as they may be needed.

Nature is daily engaged in the formation of rudimentary
sketches of animals and vegetables, by a process which the
ancients termed spontaneous generation. She is always
beginning anew, day by day, the work of creation, by
forming monads, which are the only living things she gives
birth to directly.

Such is the system which, though of great celebrity in
its day, made very few converts, and would, perhaps, by
this time have been shelved with other literary curiosities,
had not Mr Darwin come forward, an illustrious disciple
to retouch the Theory, to recast some of its parts, to supply
its deficiencies, and to give the last finish to the genesis of
mutation.

The main difference between the plan of the master and
of the disciple is in the machinery by which the required
transformations have been effected. In the general prin-
ciple of Transmutation there is a perfect accordance, but
each proposes a method of his own to accomplish the
alleged phenomenon. According to Lamarck, it has been
mainly by effort and by continued attempts to bring about
a change, that the change has been realized ; with Mr Dar-
win the agent has been a metaphor, or, dropping the
metaphorical term, * the Sequence of Events,' which can be
the cause of nothing, as it is itself a series of effects.
Lamarck's agent, though a ridiculous absurdity, is some-
thing intelligible and tangible. Mr Darwin's is a phantom
always eluding the grasp. We might, if criticising the
Lamarckian system, inquire what became of the animals

108 THE TRANSMUTATION SCHOOL.

before the change, so requisite for their new character in
the drama of life, was fully accomplished ? How did the
once thick-legged and slow animals, the pre-gazelles and
the p re-antelopes, continue to escape the carnivorous ani-
mals, all the time that their legs were lengthening and re-
fining, and their powers of speed accumulating? And
how did the progenitors of the giraflFe ward off starvation,
in deserts without herbage, before their necks and tongues
and front legs were prolonged to enable them to reach the
foliage of the trees ? and so on in every other case. These
questions of course would be quite as puzzling if applied
to the Darwinian system, and perhaps more so, as Mr
Darwin demands an immensity of time for his mutations.
His dogs, with 'slightly plastic limbs,' improving in the
lapse of thousands of ages to enable them to catch hares,
when all other food had failed them, would, it is to be
feared, have long ago joined ' the people of dreams/ before
the day of their improvement dawned on them.

The pictures of Lamarck's otter acquiring web-feet and
an amphibious existence by frequenting the sides of streams
in search of its prey, immediately suggests the more mag-
nificent transformation of the bear into the whale. La-
marck's otter must surely have been first cousin to Darwin's
bear.

When two great wizards, like Janncs and Jambres,
descend to the water-side for the exercise of their art, there
is no limit to the wonderful achievements which they may
accomplish with their transforming rods.

After this the theory of Transmutation seems to have
been dormant, at least in this country, till an anonymous
author published * The Vestiges of the Natural History of
Creation.' The date of the fifth edition of this work now

THE TRANSMUTATION SCHOOL, 109

before me is 1845, the first edition was probably published
two or three years earlier. It met with great success, soon
became a popular book, and is still enjoying a measure of
popularity. This is to be attributed in part to the pleasant
style of its composition, and to the lucid and intelligible
tone of the statements it contains. It is an ecLsy book to
read, and the novelty of its subject made it an entertaining
one. The scientific world is disposed to speak slightingly
of the work as deficient in information, but the author does
not seem to put forth the pretensions of a man of science,
and he ofiers his statement simply as the result of his
reading — he gathers from other writers his materials, and
proposes his deductions on them with simplicity and
modesty. There may be mistakes in the statements, or a
deficiency of knowledge may here and there betray itself,
but on the whole the book may be considered the least
offensive of any that have yet appeared to advocate the
theory of Transmutation.

It may be interesting to see the opinion of this author on
Lamarck's system, as showing the disagreement amongst
the advocates of the same cause. The author of the
Vestiges, in making the following strictures, explains, in
measure, his own views : * Early in this century, M. La-
marck, a naturalist of the highest character, suggested a
hypothesis of organic progress which has incurred much
ridicule, and scarcely ever had a single defender. He sur-
mised, and endeavoured, with a great deal of ingenuity, to
prove, that one being advanced in the course of generations
to another, in consequence merely of its experience of wants
calling for the exercise of its faculties in a particular direc-
tion, by which exercise new developments of organs took
place, ending in variations sufficient to constitute a species.

110 THE TRANSMUTATION SCHOOL,

It is hardly necessary to remark how inadequate does the
view of Lamarck appear to account for the rise of the
organic kingdoms. If he had suggested a law of develop-
ment for advancing the fundamental or internal organiza-
tion in a succession of stages, like those of the individual
ovum of the highest animal, and pointed to some abnormal
and not yet understood tendency in organic beings to give
rise, through the medium of generation, to modifications of
external structure fitting the progeny for new conditions ;
and if, to these ideas, he had added a more expUcit acknow-
ledgment of the whole being the evolution of a divine will,
which was present in it all, he would, in my opinion, have
come much nearer to fact, and obtained more patient
hearing from mankind' (241).

The author of the Vestiges tells us that at first the earth
presented only seas and sea-animals. Afterwards shores
were formed, and animals fitted for living in such a field
were produced by an advance of development from certain of
the marine tribes. In time there was dry land and vege-
tation, and then the shore-animals gave birth to families
fitted for that superior theatre of existence (258).

There is much reason to believe that * certain large and
important mammals, if not the whale,' have proceeded
directly from the reptiles (263). The marine Saurians were
progenitors of aquatic mammalia, whales, &c. (267).
Elei)liants were derived from herbaceous cetacea (267).
Birds sprung from fishes (263). The rhinoceros was the
progenitor of the hog, and the horse was fined down from
the elephant (a startling pedigree for the Racing Calendar).
* In the prehensile upper lip of the horse we seei the last
relic of the proboscis of the elephant and tapir ; the clump-
ing of the extremities into one shield or hoof, serving to

THE TRANSMVTA TION SCHOOL. 1 1 1

support the body of the animal in soft, dry soil, sufficiently
shows what kind of habitat determined the production of
this interesting and useful genus ' (269).

The walrus or morse furnished the origin to ruminating
animals (269), and the family of bears (Ursidae) came from
the seals (271).

Man's parentage is not directly stated, but suggested,
apparently in a hint : 'Last of all issued from the woods a
being erect, majestic, and with many traits of external
grace and beauty, to overspread the whole earth with his
race,' &c., &c. (274).

As the system requires a parentage from an antecedent
form for every ' newly-developed ' life, we cannot suppose
that * the majestic creature ' is exempt from the general
rule, and we must therefore understand that when man
' issued from the woods ' he had been there for ages with his
progenitors — the Gorilla, the Oran-Otang or Chimpanzee,
that he had gradually got rid of the lower pair of hands,
that his legs and muscles had been ' developed ' into those
of the human form, that his foot and heel had become
adapted for walking, that his face and brain had mightily
improved, that he had acquired the ^ower of speech; and
endowed now with a conscience and imagination, and with a
capacity for the abstract sciences, was able to produce
from his Species a Homer, a Milton, a Newton, or a La-
place.

Such in a few words is this system. The origin of all
life is to be traced to the waters ; water is the general
parent — apierrov /Jtev tlSttio. * The great trunk of animality,'
says the author, * lies in the ocean, up even to the mam-
malia/ A curious contradiction of the old creed which
made earth * the great tnuik of animality.'

112 THE TRANSMUTATION SCHOOL. .

As usual with all the School, we have the modus operandi
of Transmutation propounded to us in an enigma. In the
Vestiges, it is * the Law of Development ' — it is * an abnor-
mal, and not yet understood, tendency in organic beings '
— * the first and simplest of beings advanced upon tJie seve-
ral lines of development^ till at length thei/ became creatures
of complicated and extensively. adapted structure/

They were developed — they became ! What is develop-
ment ? It is an addition of matter to existing forms to pro-
duce this augmentation ; but let us suppose matter added
to a hog for an indefinite period, till it had grown twenty
feet high, it would still only be a huge hog — it would not
have become more like an elephant in its constitution than
when it was only a foot high. Do they mean change* by

* This is, in fact, the real meaning of the dainty word * development,'
as used in this school. The word * change * would seem to be begging the
question, so they substitute another term which seems to be indefinite,
though they do not at all intend it to bo so. This peeps out in the fol-
lowing sentence of Professor Powell : * Some scientific inquirers reject the
idea of development or transmutation, because, as they allege, they find no
evidence or existing instances of such a thing to produce.' — (Unity of
Worlds, 431.) Wo see then what the school intend by * development ; ' it is
in plain English Transmutation: and if this were substituted for the other
word, in all passages where it occurs, much ambiguity would disappear.

The original and strict yeaning of ^development' is the disengaging
from something that infolds, and thence, the disclosure of bodies by growth.
I find it defined thus in a French exposition of terms : —

' Accroisemcnt naturcl des corps solides, liquidcs, ou gazeuses, des vcge-
taux, des corps organises ou inorganiques de terrain, des rochers, de
rhomme lui-meme, specialement considere dans les etres vivants.'

l^uffonHays : ' L'hommecroit enhautcurjusquuseize ou diz-huit ans, ct
cepondant le ilfMoppement enticr de toutes les parties de sou corps en gros-
seur n'est acheve <pi*ik tronte ans.'

In every instance where this word is legitimately used, it means aug-
mentation, extension, or improvement of something already existing. It
never has the meaning of Transmutation.

Harthelomi uses it in this passage in the strict sense : * Je pense, que de
temps en temps, pout-otre memo ii chacjue generation, la nature repand
sur la terre un certain nombre de talents qui restent ensevelis, lorsquc rien
ne contribue li les ttrvehjijtcr*

THE TRANSMUTATION SCHOOL. 113

development ? if so, then animals have been changed by
* the Law of Change ' — a mystery of words of great depth.
When a walrus was developing into a cow, how did the
development begin ? whence did the new particles of mat-
ter come for the new form and habits ? and how did they
begin to assume the new form P

The answer probably would be, that it was by the oper-
ation of a Law not yet understood. Then if you do not
understand your Law, and have no means of explaining or
proving it, — if it is merely a gratuitous invention, a mist of
words to conceal your ignorance, — why pretend to be an
exponent of that which you do not understand, and which
after all your trouble is not explained at all ? How easy
it is to deceive oneself with a word ! Lamarck had his
words, * efforts of internal sentiment ' — * acts of organiza-
tion,' 'influence of subtile fluids.' Then in another quarter
we have Natural Selection, all expedients to conceal a deep
chasm of the unknown with a thin veil of pretension ; but
the chasm is there still, deep as eternity, and no verbal ex-
pedients will ever succeed in making us forget its existence.

The next English writer who adopted the theory of
Transmutation was Professor Baden Powell, and this, but
briefly, in his notes on * The Order of Nature,' published in
1859.

The position assumed by the learned Professor is, as far
as I understand it, to admit *a Universal Reason and
Supreme IntelUgence ' in the mechanism of the universe
(233), but wholly to repudiate the idea of creation, and
especially in the production of the various forms of life.

In noticing a suggestion of Playfair, that it might be
worthy of consideration whether the original constitution
of the planetary system might not be referable to a me-

lU THE TRANSMUTATION SCHOOL.

chanical cause, he observes (147), 'If the arrangements
alluded to could be shown to be the results of still higher
mechanical causes, it would but furnish a still higher proof
of Intelligence, instead of being antagonistic to it ; mechan-
ism is the very exponent of mindy and yet he objects to any
inference of design or purpose — * for the structure of the
universe wc can infer no final design or purpose whatever,
which is perpetual in its' adjustments, offering no evidence
of beginning or end' (237) ; though he adds these remark-
able words, * however, the Umited evidence in some of its
parts, of adjustment of means to ends, may warrant the
conjecture of other higher unknown purposes/

In the notes appended to * The Order of Nature,* the Pro-
fessor very plainly takes his place in the School of Trans-
mutation, objecting to the idea of creation,* as derived
from religion, and * therefore having no place in science/
That all Species were derived from older ones seems to him
a necessity by the universal Law of Continuity ; and if there
is an absence of evidence to prove this by geological re-
cords, it is because the evidence has not yet been found
(407). This point he takes up with some asperity, calUng
it ' a trite objection,' which he thinks he has * disposed of '
in some previous publication.

lie then quotes Professor Brown of Heidelberg, who

* It has been already shown that Creation is not necessarily coDnected
with any religious idea, and that Lucretius, of all writers most adverse
to religious impressions, freely uses the term ; take this instance, in which
ho says that things may bo created without the intervention of tlio Deity : —
Quas ob res, ubi viderimus nihil posse creari
Do nihilo, turn, quod sequimur, jam rectius inde
Perspicicmus ; et undo queat res quasque creari,
Et quo quasque modo fiant opera sine Divum. — (i. 155.)
Lucretius more than once gives the title of crcatrix to Nature : —
Donicum ad extremum crescendi pcHica finem
Omnia porduxit rcrum Natura creatrix. — (ii. 1115.)

THE TRANSMUTATION SCHOOL. 115

lays down two laws by which, as he avers, the sequence
of organic beings has been regulated.

1. By an independent productive power constantly ad-
vancing in an intensive as well as extensive direction or
degree.

2. By the nature and change of the outward condition
of existence imder which the organic beings to be called
forth were to live. Both these laws are in the closest con-
nection with each other, dlthough we cannot understand the
productive power*

Here, again, the Transmutationist brings up his system
to a blank wall in the labyrinth of error. We have here
* an independent productive power which we cannot un-
derstand.' This by the ancients would be termed Nature,
or God ; and all indeed that we seem to gain by the vari-
ous teachers of this school is a choice of new words. We
say that a supreme Mind, whose actions are inscrutable,
performed the acts of creation which we do not even hope
to explain ; the new school, after preaching against creation,
presents us with * an independent productive power which
they cannot understand,' — * or an abnormal tendency not
yet understood.' What have we gained by these new terms ?
what has been proved or advanced by them ? are not the
old words as good ? and are they not far more respectable ?

There is one peculiarity in Professor Poweirs views — that
he speaks with a sort of magisterial certainty of our ulti-
mately understanding all these mysteries ; that we shall, in

• It 18 remarkable that though these laws are quoted by Powell with
approbation. Brown himself does not seem to have been a Transmutationist,
for he distinctly says, * no experience proves that any one species or genus,
or even an order or a class, has really been transformed into another '
(465) : and for this Professor Powell reproves him, as not having sufficiently
considered the subject.

lie THE TRANSMUTATION SCHOOL.

due time, be able to interpret this unknown power ; and
that, if *life is unknown, it only remains to be made known/
He seems to think that the day is not far distant when the
mysteries of life and generation will be as thoroughly un-
derstood as any chemical problem that science has mastered.
We shall see : some persons, however, will doubt this.

As Professor Powell wisely abstained from entering into
any details, contenting himself with advocating the general
principle, he has escaped the ridicule which must be the
lot of all those who undertake to furnish us with the pedi-
gree of animals, evolving from one another. Thus he is
able, not having committed himself, to speak slightingly of
Lamarck, and to call the Vestiges of Creation * a philoso-
phical romance ' (173). An unkind cut at a fellow-labourer
and associate in that school of which both are teachers.

Mr Darwin has, in * The Historical Sketch of the recent
Progress of Opinion on the Origin of Species,' which is a
sort of preface to his book, given a brief notice of writers
whom he considers, either directly or indirectly, as favour-
able to the theory of Transmutation.

Most of those names have been mentioned in this chap-
ter, but he also reckons as his coadjutor the Hon. and Rev.
W. Herbert, Dean of Manchester, who, in a work on Ama-
ryllidaceae, 1837, advanced the proposition *that botanical
species are only a higher and more permanent class of varie-
ties :' the precise language used by Mr Darwin. He also
believed that the single Species of each animal was created
in an originally highly plastic condition (i. e. with capacities
for metamorphose), and that these have produced by inter-
crossing, all our existing Species. This statement we take

THE TRANSMUTATION SCHOOL. 117

from Mr Darwin, having never met with any of the pub-
lications of the Reverend Author.

In this ' Historical Sketch/ Mr Darwin says of the Ves-
tiges : * The work, from its powerful and brilliant style,
though displaying in the earlier editions little accurate
knowledge, and a great want of scientific caution, imme-
diately had a very wide circulation. In ray opinion it has
done excellent service in calling, in this country, attention
to the subject, in removing prejudice, and in thus preparing
the ground for analogous views/

Thus Mr Darwin considers the author of Vestiges as his
pioneer, and the husbandman who has prepared the soil
for the Darwinian harvest. But it is open to suspicion, and
by some persons asserted that we owe * The Origin of Spe-
cies ' to the influence which the Vestiges exercised on Mr
Darwin's mind : and that in the general argument of that
publication, Mr Darwin found suggestions for a more per-
fect system of Transmutation, which it has been his busi-
ness to elaborate.

CHAPTER IX.

M. TR^MAUX'S THEORY.

M. Tremaux, the last who has entered the lists as the
champion of Transmutation, has made his appearance even
after Mr Darwin. His work ' Origine et Transformations
de rhomme et des autres etres/ was published in 1865.

As his system is carefully considered, and differs, in its
main principle, from the" other writers of this school, with
whom indeed he finds much fault for not having discovered
the great secret of the sect, a separate chapter may be
assigned to an analysis of his Theory. Unlike his prede-
cessors, who trace the Origin of Life to the waters, M, Trd-
maux assures us that the soil has created or produced all
animals, and has been the cause of their various transmuta-
tions. He commences at once with a sentence which
enunciates his leading principle : —

* La perfection des etres est ou devient proportionelle au
degr^ d' Elaboration du sol sur lequel ils vivent ; et, le sol
est en g^n^ral d'autant plus ElaborE, qu'il appartient k une
formation g^ologique plus r^cente ' (17).

This is printed in capital letters in the text. This he
calls his * grand simple law,' though many supplementary
clauses are appended to it in the progress of his inquiry.
To the action of the soil he adds also, though apparently
with reluctance, the difference of temperature of different

M. TREMAUXS THEORY, 119

climates, as a sort of secondary instrument, ' which has a
certain action on plants, but has very little effect on man,
who knows how to preserve himself from the excesses of
temperature/

Here, of course, the objection would be obvious, first,
that very many animals depend altogether on a very high
temperature for their existence, as others do on a cold one ;
and that apes and monkeys, and many other creatures, if
placed on the very best * recent ' soil, in a cold, or even
temperate climate, would speedily perish. A high temper-
ature has also produced, or is inseparably connected with,
a considerable division of the human race, the Negroes and
their kindred tribes. 'But colour,' says M. Tr^maux,
* with men, as with many animals, is only the little side of
the question* ' La coloration, chez I'homme, comme chez
beaucoup d'animaux, n'est que le petit cot^ de la ques-
tion ; chez I'homme le teint est le r^sultat d'une trfes
faible modification de la peau . . . et n'a aucune influence
surla constitution et les facultds ' (23). Still, this distinc-
tion of colour is sufficient to make a broad division of the
human race, and is not such a trifle as M. Tr^maux would
have us believe. It is a very evident and unquestioned
result of temperature, and has produced a marked charac-
ter, which all mankind has always acknowledged, though
they have been slow to perceive in the effect of any soil
any mark of diversity, at all comparable to such a dis-
tinction •

The general law has, moreover, to be qualified with ' the
effect of frequent crossings, and a change of alimentary
productions, which takes place in a sensible degree (assez
sensible) between neighbouring countries.'

These two qualifications invalidate the theory ; for the

120 M. 'PR^MAUX^S THEORY.

instances would be few indeed, where these crossings did
not take place, and where neighbouring tribes did not

•

Interchange the productions of the soil. All this, moreover,
involves a history of mankind, to be worked out of the
imagination ; for how did the first stock of men (educed
out of a previous stock of superior apes) separate from the
first family so as to avoid neighbourhood, crossings, and
interchange of food ? For it is one part of this Theory, that
a Species, to become such truly, must have been long iso-
lated, and have lived long on one soil. When this process
has been continued a sufficient time, then the Species is
formed, with law of fecundity.

But man sprung from a very superior quadrumanous
animal, very far superior to the gorilla. His history,
therefore, and that of his predecessors, with the soil they
lived on, &c., &c., have all to be sketched by the imagina-
tion — it cannot be a history of facts.

M. Tr^maux attributes to the soil some undefined mvs-
terious action, which he does not explain ; that it is some-
thing more than the difference of the food which it pro-
duces, is evident from the following passage.

* L'homme se nourrit dc diff^rentcs espfeces v<?g(5tales et
animates particuliferes k chacune des grandes divisions con-
tinentales. De la parait resulter un ensemble dc physiono-
mies propre k chacune de cos divisions, et meme une
ccrtaine correlation de forme, mais elle n'empeche nulleraent
Taction du sol de so dessincr nettement sous cette influence
particulifere ' (24).

The ' action of the soil,' then, is something over and
above the action of the food it produces. A principle of
transmutation exists in the soil : in the recent soils, the
tendency of its action is towards perfection ; in the primi-

M, TREMAUX'S THEORY, 121

tive soil, it is towards degeneration and debasement. What
may be the nature of this action, is not unfolded to us ; it
is, in fact, the mystery of M. Tr^maux's system, and is
analogous to ' the law of development,' and the * independ-
ent productive power,' of the other writers of this school.

Like the rest of his fellow-labourers, M. Tr^maux per-
sonifies Nature, and talks of her objects and intentions, as if
the various forms of life had all been projected in an ante-
cedent plan.

* Si Ton cherclie k creer une nouvelle espfece par le croise-
ment, on ^choue ; ce qui est bien naturel, puisque, dans la
Nature, son but est contraire, c'est k dire qu'il unifie les
etres qui y sont soumis au lieu de les diversifier; en
d autres termes son but est de grouper les etres en espfeces
distinctes . • . . la Nature se refuse k faire une nouvelle
esp^ce' (189).

Now this is remarkable language, as it is precisely that
which, as we have seen. Saint Hilaire said he could not
use — ' I cannot make Nature as an intelligent being,' and
yet M. Tr^maux is strictly of the Material School, no writer
can be more so.

All the perfect types of animals have been produced on
recent soils. The primitive soil of the first geological ages
was composed of disintegrations, effected at one epoch only ;
the recent soil of our epoch is made of disintegrations, ef-
fected during all the geological epochs, — ^the disintegration
of the ancient rocks mingled in the soil renders it com-
pletely unfit for man (119 — 20).

Man reaches perfection, or degenerates according to the
recent or ancient soil on which he lives ; and as soon as he
reaches the type proper to the conditions in which he is

122 M. TRhlAUX'S THEORY.

existing, he changes no more, as long ots the condiiions re^
main the same (121).

In all modifications of the established order of things,
Species, fixed till then, may be, and often have been,
changed. — ' Let us go back to the epoch, when one of those
grand movements took place, of which geology shows us
the traces ; by means of that law, of which we have estab-
lished the bases, nothing can be more simple than to com-
prehend the effect'of that new condition.*

* Les etres les plus parfaits jusqu'alors se transformeront
en jouissant de ce nouveau sol ; ils acquerront un nouveau
degr^ de perfection, sup^rieur k ce qui existait ant^rieure-
ment; nouveau sol, nouveaux etres' (122).

Of course, if M. Tr^maux has laid it down as the ' basis
of his law,' that the soil does transform animals, thus, when
the soil is changed, new transformations may be expected.
But, ' the basis ' is simply assuming the proposition to be
proved.

When Species are once formed, it requires particular
conditions to bring to perfection the formation of a new
Species ; it is requisite that not only should the race, which
is about to be formed, be isolated from the surplus of its
Species ; but that it should abide on one sort of soil only,
and, moreover, that it should not be of a middle quality,
as it would then tend to make the middle type (140).

If beings, which the soil tends to transform and ameli-
orate, continue to cross with those which belong to soils of
less favoured nature, then it will only be able to effect a
difference of variety.

If the crossings with the original Species are in any way
prevented, the favoured Variety necessarily becomes Species,
by continuing to transform itself (141).

M. TREMAUX'S THEORY, 123

To account for the lack of intermediate beings, which
the records of geology cannot afford us, M. Tr^maux af-
finns that ' the relative epoch of transformation was * short
[long, says Mr Darwin], that the grouping of distinct
Species was soon effected, that the conditions for their geo-
logical preservation were unfavourable, because they were
on a recent soil, or one subject to elevations and move-
ments — ^these are the multiplied causes which render so
difficult, and almost impossible, the discovery of the inter-
mediate beings between the Species ' (147).

And of these multiplied causes, we may safely say, that
they are all visionary, and that every one of these * con-
ditions ' is deduced from the imagination alone, without
the support of any known fact. From anything that can
appear to the contrary, conditions totally dissimilar are
quite as probable, and, as some would say, much more
probable. How does M. Tr^maux know that the epoch of
• transformation was short, and that the grouping of distinct
Species was soon effected ? Mr Danvin would tell a very
different story ; though it must be freely confessed, that
neither of these learned gentlemen- can know anything at
all about the matter.

The original Species {Vespece mere) of man was, in the
favoured regions, of a greater superiority relatively to the
gorilla, than the white man is relatively to the negro : but
that Species has disappeared before man, as the red skins
of America disappear before the European colonies (258).

It is only in the regions the most favourable for him
that the primitive man could exist, more perfect than that

• Mr Darwin says, * the process of Natural Selection is alvcays ea?-
tremely slow' (1 14). The disagreement of the Transmutationists on many
esseDtial points is very instructive.

124 M. TREMAUX'S THEORY.

which is now called ' the man of the woods/ M. Tr^maux
seems to think that it is not impossible to discover, in some
regions of the earth, the being who may be considered as
having been the most advanced during the epoch which
preceded that of man (290).

This disappearance of anthropomorphous Species, proper
to each soil, has made a wide gap between men and the
quadrumanous animals. It has established that which is
now called the human Species (290).

Men and apes resemble one another in their anatomical
composition, which is in effect the only point which makes
us recognize the common origin of these beings, since the
difference of intellectual faculty is only the result of their
different degrees of advancement and perfection, which are
only secondary considerations (308).

The negro is a degenerate man, not an advanced ape :
in the same way that the apes are degenerated from a more
advanced Species, which, some time or other, occupied more
favourable regions of the earth, and in the end gave birth
to more perfect beings, which have formed the stock from
which we have sprung (310).

On the whole, beings from their lowest point of separa-
tion, up to man, have been perfected by means of trans-
formation from one Species to another (472).

It may, perhaps, be amusing to learn by what means
the intelligence of apes was evoked, preparatory to their
assuming the human form. * The intelligence of the quad-
rumanes, which live in the trees, is kept on the watch ;
with their eyes they follow their enemies — they calculate —
they reckon in a more continued and sustained manner
the chances which are for or against them. They have
even to foresee the strength of the branch which is to siis-

M. TREMAUX'S THEORY. 125

tain them, and to take into consideration its elasticity
which aids them in springing from one bough to another.
One may conceive that this difference of state must in-
duce a greater exercise of the mental faculties, than with
some powerful animal which has less to fear, or with the
burrowing animals which find their security in that con-
cealment which deprives them of exercise'* (280).

In this way our intellect began, our sylvan ancestors
watched their enemies from the tops of the trees, and cal-
culated the strength of the boughs on which they were
about to leap. This was the commencement of * calcula-
tion;' these faculties were more and more ' developed,' as
the breed of anthropoidal animals improved with the soil,
till ' the scale of being arrived at man, with whom every
thing is done by calculation. He does not content him-
self with necessary speculations, he desires to know every-
thing that surrounds him, even the stars, the past, the
future, the infinite.' So, then, from the bough of a tree
we leaped to the stars and the infinite ! Who ever would
have suspected that algebra and astronomy spring from an
ape's lucubrations on the length of his leaps ? But why
such an origin of intellect should be confined to the an-
thropoidal animals is not apparent, seeing that the squirrel
is equally watchful of his enemies, and equally sagacious
in his leaps, and lives also on the trees. Who knows, but
that squirrels may be developing into geometricians in
some undiscovered forests of 'the favoured regions '1

An incidental argument introduced by M. Tr^maux,

* 'Ces scales observations nous montrent quelles voies a dil prendre le
r^gne de rintelligence.

' Lorsqne Ton arrive k lliomme, chez leqael tout se fait par calcul. II
ne se contente pas des speculations necessaires, il veut connaitre tout ce
qui rentoure, les astres mSmes, le pass4, Tavenir, Tinfini.'

126 M. TREMAUX'B THEORY.

when discussing our relationship with apes should not be
omitted. ' Why should we be astonished that the hand of
an ape which serves him continually for seizing the branches,
in leaping from one to the other, should differ in some de-
gree from that of a man, which is used for such different
purposes ? ' (319) So, then, the ape's hand was not in-
vented and made for him to enable him to Uve a sylvan
life amongst the trees, but by endeavouring to make use
of it in leaping, it became what it is, and the ape himself
became a quadrumanous animal ! Our hands, also, have
become human by applying them to multifarious purposes !

Here we have Lamarck again, animals making them-
selves what they are, by effort. But is not this, also, for-
getting the great instrument of all changes, the soil ? If
a superior soil could make an ape of any sort, of course it
could make it complete. If the soil has been the cause of
the production of all species of animals, why create any
difficulty about so small a matter as the formation of an
ape's hand ?

M. Trdmaux has been more cautious than some of his
school in giving the pedigree of animals ; nevertheless, he
has favoured us with a slight sketch, in such points as
he says are very easy to be recognized (tr5s-saisissable).
The articulated animals descend by regular series to the
worms, which are themselves intimately connected with
the infusoria, the vertebrated are united by unmistakable
connections with the fishes and the reptiles, and with these
and the mammifers. To pass from these to birds, the de-
gree of union is not so well sustained ; nevertheless, we
see it in the bats, and also in the penguins, which with
their rudimentary wings serve as examples. These are
pretty nearly all the details with Avhich we are furnished,

M. Tr£mAUX'S theory. 127

the rest is hinted in general expressions, left for the imagin-
ation to supply whatever may be deficient : and, indeed,
in this matter M. Tremaux has not ventured on more than
any physiologist would assert, that there is a sort of analo-
gy or resemblance, and a chain of similitude traceable in
degree, throughout the Animal Kingdom.

In his system, however, we might inquire, if, as it is
pretended, there is a union between mammifers and fish,
how the soil elaborated the fish ? as the soil is the creator
it must have produced the mammifers first, and from them
the fish must have sprung. M. Tremaux says nothing
about the power of water on aquatic animals, nor does he
notice that which would be obvious to any one, that if it
be true that the soil has produced land -animals, then it
must be considered that the water has produced the aqua-
tic tribes. This would, however, break into his system of
transmutation of every Species of animal from antecedent
Species — and of the unity of all animals. In his system
there cannot be two producers : and it will be remembered
that he has distinctly told us ' that all beings from the
lowest point of separation, up to man, have been perfected
by means of transformation from one Species to another 1 '
There is this curious proposition of the Theory, common
indeed with most of the school, that animals in the position
in which they first appeared on the scene, were not perfect
in their grade of life and the position which they occupied,
but have become perfect by a long process of transmutation
subsequently. The worm was not perfect but improved into
some higher form, the reptile was not perfect, the mammifer
was not perfect, the ape improved through many gradations
of ameliorating Species up to man — and so of every other
animal. M. Tremaux thinks, indeed, that all animals are

128 M. TuiMAVX'S THEORY.

perfect now, and that they have reached their resting
point, at least this seems to him probable, though it is by
no means apparent why the inferior forms should now rest
content with their inferiority, or why the soil should cease to
exercise its powers of mutation. In this point, as in many
others, he disagrees with Mr Darwin, who looks forward to
an immense improvement in aU forms of life, for with him
Nature has by no means reached its Sabbath, but is pro-
gressing onwards towards perfection.

If it were worth while to sift such a system with ques-
tion, we might ask how the soil could have influenced the
existence of most of the carnivorous animals ? The wolf,
for instance, cares nothing for the nature of the soil: primi-
tive or recent, elaborated or simple, are all one to him.
He abounds in all soils, very frequently amongst the rocky
solitudes of the primary moimtains, as well as in the forests
or ' the recent ' plains, and in the great steppes of wild and
sterile lands. What, again, has the soil had to do in form-
ing migratory birds, which continually pass over in long
journeys to distant lands, and settle on soils of the most
varying qualities ? But a system Uke this may claim im-
munity from questions, its existence is in the realm of the
imagination, and therefore it is free from the test of logic.

The work of M. Tr^maux is certainly a curiosity in liter-
ature. It is written in a grave, philosophical tone, well sus-
tained, and with dignity of style. Pages follow pages full
of ideal statements and positions of circumstances, to ac-
count for the formation of Species ; laws and rules are laid
down for the events of ancient epochs ; and geological com-
binations* and distributions of life are described, as if all

• As a striking instance of these visionary speculations take the fol-
lowing passage : —

M. TREMAUX'S THEORY, 129

this had really happened, and were as authentic as the history
of France ; and the whole system is built up with as much
care as if it were a solid and substantial fabric, based on a
careful induction from known and acknowledged facts.

The general view of M. Trdmaux on Nature will be best
seen in these words, which need no comment : — ' Quoi de
plus admirable'que cette incommensurable Nature, ou tout
s'enchaine tellement bien, qu'il suffit d'un seul acte de con-
densation d atomes, de rien, pour que des astres immenses,
des milliers de soleils, puis chaque plan&te, chaque ^tre
animal, vegetal ou autre, en d^coule a son tour' (486).

We have only now to show M. Tr^maux in the character
of an opponent of Mr Darwin. These two writers have
indeed the same cause to advocate, but it is by such a dif-
ferent principle, that M. Tr^maux frequently reproves Mr
Darwin for his statements, and, in some instances, with
success ; though it must be borne in mind that M. Tr^-
maux's true ground of quarrel with his confederate is, that
he does not make any use of M. Tr^maux's fundamental
principle.

'The principle of Selection has been long known, although
it has only been seriously put into practice in our epoch.
This principle is considered by Mr Darwin as the great
motive power of perfection. The employment of it, in fact,
by suppressing artificially the procreative action of the infe-
rior beings of each species, gives an advantageous result
which elevates the average specimen of this type ; only that

* Let us suppose that, from one cause or another, a Species is nearly en-
tirely destroyed ;Mf a feeble remnant of it should find itself in a favourable
geological condition, it may be transformed many times in succession
(elle peut se transformer plusieurs fois de suite), and so much the more
easily the smaller the remnant shall be, and the more isolated, and that
without leaving scarcely any traces of its mutations' (226).

130 M. TREMAUX'8 THEORY.

this result, being artificial, disappears with the attention
which has produced it.

* When a horticulturist chooses his best specimens for re-
production, or simply suppresses the worst, it is evident
that the descendants obtained by this process will present,
on an average, a higher degree of improvement. But if this
process of careful selection is relaxed, the new race falls back
into its state of anterior equilibrium.

*Mr Darwin, it is true, imagines an eflFect of a struggle
for life, which would fulfil, in an unconscious and permanent
manner, this function of Observer, adequate to destroy the
inferior creatures. In this view of the question, Mr Dar-
win seems to us to be greatly in error, for a stniggle for
life is injurious to all that are subject to it, good as well as
bad.

* When two plants or two animals press upon one an-
other and dispute for existence, they injure one another
mutually much more than they make a difference between
two subjects of the same Species ; if one triumphs over the
other, it is simply tliat the one which has been less injured
gains the victory.

' Supposing ten trees should fix their roots where one only
could have successfully grown without this struggle or
competition, the ton, in spite of this competition, or rather
on account of it, will grow miserably stunted. Neverthe-
less competition has played its part in hindering the de-
velopment of many seeds and off-sets.

' If ill-fed animals fall upon a meagre pasture, the more
insufficient it is, the more do they devour it with an eager
competition. Nevertheless the most favoured is far from
being satisfied, as he might have been if he had been alone,
that is to say, without this stniggle for food.

M. TREMAUX'S THEORY. 131

* If a tribe of people is expelled from a good soil to a
miserable one, as the Irish of Armagh and Down, who were
driven into the barony of Flews, the struggle for life be-
comes indeed serious, but they nevertheless all degenerate.
It does not terminate in some of them improving, and be-
coming greatly superior to the others.

' In one word, the struggle for life only keeps the pro-
ductive power of beings, the germs of which are always
superabundant, in an equilibrium with the resources of the
soil ; and nothing authorizes Mr Darwin to suppose that
the very feeble difference of action with which it bears on
individuals of the same species, is superior to the injurious
competition with which it acts on all of them.

' Mr Darwin, like many others, wanted an explanation for
the phenomena which surround us, and he has not per-
ceived that everywhere and in all times beings were devel-
oped in proportion to the qualities of the soil to which ttiey
belong. The augmentation of these qualities must there-
fore determine the qualities of the beings themselves ' (228).

' According to Mr Darwin, this law of pro-
gress by Selection only takes account of cases of perfection ;
and cannot, as he himself acknowledges, account for cases
of degeneracy, which are nevertheless so very numerous.
Thus is he driven by his system to deny every instance of
the sort. Nevertheless no one will admit that the white
man has made progress in assuming the negro type,
although Mr Darwin can say with reason that the consti-
tution of the negro agrees better than ours with the con-
tions of life in Central Africa — in the same way that the
constitution of the earth-worm agrees better with its con-
dition than ours. Moreover, in explaining how it is that
the island and the little continents have fewer species than

132 M, TREMAUX'8 THEORY.

the great ones, he is greatly embarrassed, and can only give
reasons more or less contradictory. The same situation
presents itself when he endeavours to explain why the ani-
mals of Egypt which have not changed their soil nor other
conditions of life for three or four thousand years, have not
also changed their character, for nothing prevented the
animals of that region to continue Selection, as all of them
are not exactly alike.

' If this combination of Natural Selection and struggle
for life were the cause of the perfecting of beings, it would
act as well on bad soil as on good, which is not the case.
Mr Darwin recognizes this indirectly when he tells us " that
which I have said, I repeat, I do not believe in any necessary
law of development . . . the variety of each species is an
independent faculty, and very variable in degree." In
fact, in his system he is obliged to recognize that variability
is independent, but independent of this system only, since
it is overruled by the soil and by crossings. He is obliged
also to recognize that it is very variable considering that it
often acts in a sense contrary to his theory.

* Nevertheless he makes this Theory the cause of the
distinction of Species. In speaking of the absence of
intermediate varieties which results so distinctly from the
limit to which fecundity extends, he says : " If we cannot
alwavs and evervwhcrc meet with the innumerable forms
of Transition, that depends chiefly on the action of Natural
Selection, by virtue of which new varieties constantly tend
to supplant and exterminate their original stock." That
explains continued extinctions, but not the degrees. Be-
sides this we suppose that geological documents have only
kept imperfect register of these transformations. That
could not explain those general and regular gaps in the

M^ TREMAUX'S THEORY, 133

evidence, and the apparent phase of stability which chcirac-
terizes the Species. Moreover, these two explanations of
the same phenomenon do not agree ; is it the one, or is it
the other, that is really the agent ?

* The struggle for life brings about a general destruction
of the inferior beings by the superiors. But as this action
operates from one end to the other of the scale of beings,
there would be no means of distinguishing the Species.
This would be the result, that only the advanced being,
less influenced by that condition, would have more ad-
vantages to injure the being which would be immediately
beneath it.

* Notwithstanding all these contradictions which Mr Dar-
win's Theory receives from the facts which we have placed
under the eyes of the reader, his book contains a number
of interesting remarks. His ideas of conformation and ap-
propriation of beings, with regard to the functions which
they have to fulfil, and the circumstances in which they
live, had already been indicated by Lamarck, who himself
only gave an explanation of more ancient ideas. The
merit * of Mr Darwin is that he has given them more de-
velopment and more consistence.

* In another passage Mr Darwin himself recognizes, if
not the error of his Theory, at least the limits of its effects,
which amounts almost to the same thing. These are his

* * Le merite de M. Darwin est do leur avoir donnd plus de developpe-
ment, plus de consistence ^ (236).

It is by no means certain that Mr Darwin will relish this compliment.
M. Pouchet also says : * M. Darwin est le continuateur direct de Lamarck.'
— (Pluralite des Races, 173.)

M. Flourens confirms all this : * Le fait est que Lamarck est le pcre do
M. Darwin. II a commence son systcme. Toutes les idees de Lamarck
sent, au fond, celles de M. Darwin. M. Darwin ne le dit pas d'abord ; il a
trop d'art pour cela ' (15).

134 M. TREMAUX'S THEORY.

words : " Natural Selection can render each organized
being only as perfect as or a little more perfect than
the other inhabitants of the same country; and against
which they must continually struggle for existence. Now
such is in effect the degree of perfection attained by Na-
ture. The aboriginal productions of New Zealand, for ex-
ample, are perfect if we compare them among one another,
but they are on the way to disappear before the continually
increasing number of plants and animals introduced by
the Europeans. Natural Selection cannot produce abso-
lute perfection — it can only produce a relative superiority ;
that is, a degree of perfection measured hj the local re-
sources^

' This quotation establishes very clearly, and in a double
way, the limit of the effects as we have laid it down. R
points out even the true cause of perfection, in affirming
that it is measured by the local resources * (237).

Thus does M. Tr^maux censure Mr Darwin, and in his
remarks on the struggle for life, with convincing argu-
ments. Even when he confronts his own Theory with
that of Mr Darwin, it is with some degree of success, for
M. Tr^maux has something substantial to present to the
reader, as every one acknowledges that soil can improve,
though scarcely any one but M. Tr^maux would affirm
that it can form or transform organized beings. The soil
can do something. Natural Selection nothing; and it is
amusing to find that Mr Darwin occasionally invokes the
assistance of the soil to eke out the deficiencies of Natural
Selection.

CHAPTER X.

STRICTURES ON MR DARWIn's THEORY.

We have now to return to Mr Darwin's Theory, and still
further to examine its claims to our acknowledgment of its
authority as an interpreter of Nature.

M. Hourens has well said,* * Natural Selection is only
Nature under another name ' (31) ; and again, ' Either
Natural Selection is nothing, or it is Nature, but Nature
endowed with the attribute of Selection — Nature per-
sonified, which is the last error of the last century ; the
nineteenth century has done with personifications ' (53).

This is indeed an exact analysis of Mr Darwin's
metaphor. Natural Selection is organization, and selects
itself.

Now that Natural Selection is indeed Nature, in this The-
ory, and nothing more, is evident not only from the general
course of the argument, and the statements with which it is
supported, but from some passages of the author which
leave no doubt on the subject. Having spoken of Nature
in the previous sentence, he goes on to say, * she can act

• * L'^lection naturelle n'est sous un autre nom que la nature. Pour un
etre organist, la nature n'est que Torganisation, ni plus, ni moins. II
faadra done aussi personnifier rorganisation, et dire que Vorganisation
cboisit Vorganisation, JJelecHon naturelle est cette/or77i€ substantielle dont
OQ joaait antrefois avec tant de facilite. Aristote disait que " si Tart de
batir etait dans le bois, cet art agirait corame la nature." A la place de
Yart de batir M. Darwin met Velection naturelle, et c*£8t tout un : Tun n'est
pas plus chimcrique que Tantre' (p. 31).

136 STRICTURES ON ME DARWIN'S THEORY.

on every internal organ, on every shade of constitutional
difference, on the whole machinery of life. Man selects
only for his own good. Nature only for that of the being
which she tends. Every selected character is fully ex-
amined by her, and the being is placed under well-suited
conditions of life/

Could studied language, seeking to express the person-
ality of Nature, and to endow her with discrimination and
accurate judgment, go further than this ? Take again this
statement: —

'Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble
man can do much by his powers of artificial selection, I can
see no limit to the amount of change, to the beauty and
infinite complexity of the co-adaptations between all
organic beings, one with another, and w4th their physical
conditions of life, w^hich may be eflFected in the long course
of time by Natures power of Selection ' (115).

Here the personification rises in intensity : if * feeble
man ' can do much in improving domestic animals and
plants, how much more can powerful Nature do in the
way of mutation, having so great a measure of time for
her operations. Observe, that 'powerful* is implied in
the contrast to ' feeble man ;' and observe, also, that the
argument also urges that if man selects, and by selection
produces improved and beautiful varieties, much more
can Nature do in this way; implying that she is much
more intelligent, and wise, and has a more refined eye for
beauty, than the artificer man. But whence comes this
' beauty ? ' We have already seen that Natural Selection
spurns beauty, that beauty is no part of the design of
Nature, and that if it were so, it would be fatal to the
Autlnr's Theory, l)y his own confession. How then

STRICTURES ON MR DARWIN'S THEORY. 137

comes it that there would be * no limit to the beauty ' of
organized beings? On such a system we should rather
have expected that there would be * no limit to the ugli-
ness/ And how comes it that we, the most exalted and
improved of apes, have come to appreciate beauty and
to admire it, and to be fascinated with it in form, colour,
harmony, contrivance, and adaptation ? who gave us this
faculty to admire beauty? Natural Selection was our
maker, and yet Natural Selection takes no account of
beauty; how can we have got any faculty but as we
derived it by improvement from our forefathers, the anthro-
poidal patriarchs of the tropical forests ? Is it an improve-
ment to comprehend and admire beauty ? It either is or
is not an improvement; if it is, then Natural Selection,
which disregards beauty, improved us by enabling us to
value it ! Our creatrix, therefore, improved us by making
us esteem that which she disapproves ! Surely this must
be regarded as a mistake. Or if it be not a mistake, then
it is no improvement to have an eye and a taste for
beauty; and the blue-tailed baboons, and the howling
monkeys, and the hideous gorillas are superior to us in
the satisfaction they feel in their ficndlike females.

But this is not all : * if feeble man can do much by his
powers of selection,' — what does man do? He makes
varieties, and cannot make anything more, and if he
withholds his hand the varieties disappear; but Nature,
according to the Theory, makes new species. Here then is
implied, that which is implied throughout the whole
Theory, that variety and mutation are the same. When
we produce by cultivation a new variety of a rose, we
know how far we have gone, and we know that we have
not made a new species, and cannot do so ; but if a rose

138 STBICTUBES ON ME DAEWIITS THEORY.

were to be gradually transformed into some new flower,
never yet heard of or seen, and to become a new species
of a new plant — a very possible and probable event in this
Theory — then a transformation would have been accom-
plished; though to improve and to change are two
opposite propositions. When therefore Man and Natural
Selection are thus brought together in comparison, the
comparison fails : Man varies and can do no more ;
Natural Selection changes the Nature and quality of or-
ganized beings ; she has her department (in the Theory),
and to this we can never approach.

We must take another instance of this abuse of lan-
guage: *It has been asserted, that of the best short-
beaked tumbler pigeons more perish in the egg than are
able to get out of it, so that fanciers assist in the act of
hatching. Now if Nature had to make the beak of a full-
grown pigeon very short for the bird's own advantage,
the process of modification would be very slow, and there
would be simultaneously the most rigorous selection of the
young birds within the egg, which had the most powerful
and hardest beaks, for all with weak beaks would inevitably
perish, or more delicate and more easily broken shells
might he selected, the thickness of the shell being known to
vary like every other structure' (92).

If Nature had to make ! that is, if it were her inclination
so to do, she would 'rigorously select' hard-beaked
young birds or weak shells. Can personification go be-
yond this ? and yet, after all, we must remember both here
and in all other passages, that Natural Selection is only
* the sequence of events as ascertained by us.' So then we
have the sequence of events setting about to make pigeons

STRICTURES OJST MR DARWIN'S THEORY, 139

with short beaks, and ' rigorously selecting ' strong beaks
or weak egg-shells ! We may, however, in passing, ob-
serve, that in this ' very slow ' process it is obvious that
the whole breed would be dead and gone some ten thou-
sand years, perhaps, before one beak had been made strong
enough. If the greater part perish at present under
existing arrangements. Natural Selection must accelerate
her movements, or her plan will fail.

Here then is the illusion : Natural Selection is continually,
and many times in every chapter, spoken of as if it were
something exterior to the organized being, a power in-
specting* and watching opportunities, when in reality it is
nothing but the organization of the being itself ; and it is
quite apparent that Mr Darwin by repeatedly using this
language has felt the reaction of it upon himself, and has
been overpowered by it ; we need not ^therefore wonder if
many an incautious Reader should be misled, when the
Author misleads himself.

'Unless favourable variations be inherited by some at
least of the offspring, nothing can be effected by Natural
Selection' (107). Now we have seen that the true sense
of Natural Selection is Nature in the organized being, or
organization. Let us read the above sentence then as
thus corrected, and we shall have it : ' Unless favourable
variations be inherited by some at least of the offspring,
nothing can be effected by organization,* or, unless organ-
ization be varied, organfzation cannot vary.

To this sapless sentence something however much more
significant is added. ' Non-inheritance of any new charac-
ter is, in fact, the same thing as reversion to the character

^ Mr Dan^'in defines it * a power incessantly ready for action ' (64).

140 STRICTURES ON MR DARWIN'S THEORY,

of the grand parents or more remote ancestors, and no
doubt this tendency to reversion may often have checked
or prevented the action of Natural Selection/

No doubt at all about it. This tendency to revert to
ancestors is that principle which extinguishes the whole
Theory, and has always checked and prevented the vagaries
of Natural Selection. It is owing to this that we all con-
tinue as we are, and that all animals are as they were since
the day they were first created ; it is owing to this that
crabs, giraffes, elephants, horses, tapirs, and pigs do not
change into one another ; it is owing to this that no new
species can be anywhere found, either that has been made
since any record could exist, or that is now in the process
of formation ; and though Mr Darwin assures .us frequently
that varieties are now in the act of making new and* well-
defined species, yet we laugh at the assertion, and believe
it no more than we do the existence of the Centaurs and
Cyclopes ; and our reason for this is that the tendency to
revert to the character of ancestors shuts the door effectu-
ally against all the clever schemes of Natural Selection.

We nmst not however pass over lightly the confusion of
terms introduced by Mr Darwin in the use he makes of
varieties, for with him, as we have already said, varieties
and mutations are identical, — a very important postulate
for the Theory.

* Plus j y refldchie,' says M. Flourens, * plus je me per-
suade que M. Darwin confond la variahilUe avec la mutd-
lilite, Ce sont deux mots, ou plutot deux ph^nomfenes qu'on
ne pent s^parer assez. La variabilite, ce sont les variations,

* It is curious to observe how quietly Mr Darwin takes this for
granted, as if it were an unquestioned fact of physiology, * It inevitably
follows that as new species are formed through Natural Selection, others
will become rarer, and finally extinct' (116).

STRICTURES ON MR DARWIJSTS THEORY, 141

les nuances plus ou raoins tranch^es, des vari^t^s d'une
meme espJjce. La mutability c'est tout autre chose ; c'est
le changement radical d'une espfece en une autre, et ce
changement ne s* est jamais vu ' (32) :

Many passages from Mr Darwin's book might be ad-
duced fully justifying these strictures of M. Flourens ;
the following sentence involves this confusion of terras :

* If the tendency to reversion has not prevented man
from creating innumerable hereditary races in the animal
and vegetable world, why should it have stopped the pro-
cess of Natural Selection?' (107). Man has cultivated, for
instance, the breed of dogs, and has successfully produced
hereditary races — the greyhound, the foxhound, &c. ; he
has also produced varieties of plants, some of which are
fertile : but in neither of these cases has he broken through
the barrier of species, he lias produced varieties only ; but
Natural Selection radically changes, according to the
Theory, the Species — changes a bustard into an ostrich, a
horse into a tapir, &c. When, therefore, we 'create
innumerable hereditary races,' we do nothing at all hke
Natural Selection, we keep within the limits of Nature.
Natural Selection spurns those barriers, and makes new
creations altogether. ' The tendency to reversion to ances-
tors ' does not prevent us accomplishing our object of pro-
ducing varieties, but if we were to attempt to form a new
Species (that which Natural Selection makes her principal
business), we should be prevented immediately. The al-
leged attribute of Natural Selection is mutation, transform-
ation, change ; we confine ourselves to vary existing forms,
but never pretend to change their nature. Our operations
therefore cannot in any way be compared to those of
Natural Selection. Now this is no trifling matter in an

142 STRICTURES ON MR DARWIN'S THEORY.

examination of the Theory, for if it were allowed to pass
that our artificial variations are equivalent to the mutations
effected by Natural Selection, then the Theory would be
proved at once. This certainly is assumed by Mr Darwin,
but the assumption must be utterly repudiated ; nothing
can be further apart in intrinsic meaning than our artificial
variations and the transformations of Natural Selection.

Neither should the wording of the passage before us be
allowed to pass unnoticed: 'man creates innumerable
hereditary races.' Creation in this discussion is a term
that would awaken all the suspicious sensibilities of a
Transmutationist. Mr Darwin would not allow us to say
that an animal is created, we therefore cannot permit him
to make us creators in order that he may turn round upon
us and claim as much for his Natural Selection. We are
suspicious of metaphorical language in this discussion, and
we have good reason to be so, for it is no secret to us that
a metaphor is in Mr Darwin's hands a Trojan horse, which,
if once admitted, ' monstrum sacrata sistimus arce.*

But there is a still deeper mystery in Natural Selection,
which, if nothing else, is certainly a mystery of words.
' The action of Natural Selection will depend on some of
the inhabitants becoming slowly modified^ the mutual re-
lations of many of the other inhabitants being thus dis-
turbed. Nothing can he effected unless favourable varia-
tions occur y and variation itself is always a slow process '
(114). The real meaning of this is that unless animals or
plants begin to change they never will be changed, a pro-
position not very hazardous. But how do these changes*

® Perhaps Mr Darwin liqa provided for these occurrences of variations
by the following new law of nature :— *

* I am strongly inclined to suspect that both in the vegetable and
animal kingdom, an occasional intercross tcith a distinct individual is a law

STRICTURES ON MR DARWIN'S THEORY, 143

begin? They are called variations, modifications, some-
times plastic tendencies : they may have many more names
which ingenuity might invent, but, let them be called what
they may, they are supposed to be accidental occun^ences,
laid hold of by keen-eyed Natural Selection, who is always
on the watch to turn to the best account any ' modifica-
tions ' that may occur. The pre-elephant, whatever sort
of animal that might be, had no proboscis, but 'some
slight modification' in the nasal regions 'occurred,' and
they were worked out slowly, by Natural Selection, till at
last the proboscis with its many thousand muscles was
duly formed. These accidental occurrences must indeed
have been numerous, for they have been the exciting cause
of every species of every organized being that exists, or
ever has existed: unless some modification had occurred
in a fish it never would have had a tail ; unless some varia-
tion had appeared in the predecessor of a nettle it never
could have had a sting ; and so on throughout the whole
realm of nature. Many myriads of these 'variations'
must have occurred, and must indeed at present be at
work, for Mr Darwin assures us that varieties are incipi-
ent species, and yet not one single instance of these ad-
vancing modifications has ever been detected, whilst on the
contrary everything seems to prove the fixedness of the plan
of Nature. If ever there was a case in which the rule ' de

of natnre. I am woll aware that there are, on this view, many cases of
difficulty, some of which I am trying to investigate * (106).

Would it not have been better if the learned author had thoroughly in-
vestigated, and satisfactorily parried, all tliesc difficulties (not some of them
only), before he ventured to publish, on suspicion, a new law of nature ?
An occasional intercross with a ^distinct' individual means an intercross
with an individual of another species. What a wonderful law this must
be which brings about these exceptional cases only occasionally I It is
not difficult to understand the object of this * law,* — it is, in fact, to allow
free scope to Natural Selection.

144 STRICTURES ON MR DARWIN'S THEORY.

non appareutibiis et non existentibus eadem est ratio/ it
surely is in this dispute of Natural Selection.

There is in this system another difficulty which seems to
puzzle its author, and to lead him into contradictory state-
ments. * It is obvious/ says he, ' that the several species
of the same genus, though inhabiting the most distinct
quarters of the world, must have originally proceeded
from the same source, as they had descended from the
same progenitor ' (381). This is intelligible enough, and
is plainly required by the Theory. But then comes the
question, which Mr Darwin agitates, whether species has
been produced on one or mere points of the earth's surface.
' Undoubtedly there are very many causes of extreme diffi-
culty in understanding how the same species could possibly
have migrated from some one point to the several distant
and isolated points where now found. Nevertheless, the
simplicity of the view that each species was produced
within a single region captivates the mind. He who rejects
it rejects the vera cama of ordinary generation, with sub-
sequent migration, and calls in the agency of a miracle.'

Before we proceed, it may be as well to understand this
accurately. The argument is this, if you do not believe
that Natural Selection has formed each Species in some
single region, and that they all subsequently migrated into
all parts of the earth wherever they are found, then you do
not believe that they sprung from one common progenitor,
and therefore you must believe in a Divine creation, here
called a miracle. ' But,' says Mr Darwin, * if the same
species can be produced (i. e. created) at two separate
points, why do we not find a single mammal common to
Europe and Austraha and South America?— The condi-
tions of life are the same, and some of the aboriginal

STRICTURES ON MR DARWIN'S THEORY, 145

plants are identically the same at these distant points of
the Northern and Southern Hemispheres ? The answer I
believe is; that mammals have not been able to migrate^
whereas some plants, from their varied means of disposal,
have migrated across the vast and broken interspace '
(383).

The argument thus carried on urges that, if creation
could produce two species, exactly similar, in two separate
points, why has it failed to do so in South America and
Australia, where all the mammals differ from those of the
old world? With this inquiry we are not concerned;
but it is obvious that it has another aspect, and bears with
equal force against Mr Darwin's theory, for how comes it
that these mammals of the same genus as those in the old
world, the jaguar, the puma, the ocelot (all felidae), the
llama of the camel family, &c. ; and which, according to
the Theory, miist have descended 'from the same pro-
genitor,* should be found in South America, when Mr
Darwin expressly tells us that they have not been able to
migrate thither ? There they arc, nevertheless ; no inde-
pendent and separate creation can have produced them^
and migration is out of the question.

Who shall unravel this perplexity ?

If in this desperate state of the Theory it should be
suggested that the continents in past ages may have been
united, even that would avail nothing here, for Mr Darwin
himself has laid it down that ' the mammals have not been
able to migrate,' and therefore that as well as every other
means of migration is inadmissible. Moreover, he himself
is averse to admit 'that continents which are now quite
separate, have been continuously, or almost continuously,
united with each other, and with the many oceanic

146 8TEICTUBES ON MB DARWIN'S THEOBY.

islands ' (388). So that the door is shut, and there we
must leave it.

For the rest of the argument the result is equally in-
felicitous, as these confessions indicate — * undoubtedly
many cases occur in which we cannot explain how the
same species has passed from one point to another.* * It
would be hopelessly tedious to discuss all the exceptional
cases of the same species now living at distant and separ-
ated points ; nor do I for a moment pretend that any ex-
planation could he offered of many such cases ' (383-4).

The Theory therefore fails to explain the very point
which it undertook to interpret; and if the alternative
really be * a miracle,' then certainly Natural Selection has
not, in this case, averted that alternative. In his anxiety
to exclude a miracle, Mr Darwin has locked himself in,
and cannot get out.

But there is still another point for consideration in this
system, of which Mr Darwin has said something, and on
which we shall venture to add a few remarks, first placing
his words before the reader. * When cases of diversified and
changed habits occur, it would be easy for Natural Selection
to fit the animal for its changed habits, or exclusively for
one of its several different habits. But it is difficult to
tell, and immaterial for us, whether habits generally
change first, and structure afterwards ; or whether slight
modifications of structure lead to changed habits; both
probably often change almost simultaneously. Of cases of
changed habits it will suffice merely to allude to that of
the many British insects which now feed on exotic plants,
or exclusively on artificial substances. Of diversified
habits, innumerable instances could be given. I have
often watched a tyrant fly-catcher (saurophagus sulphur-

STRICTURES ON MR DARWIN'S THEORY. 147

atus) in South America, hovering over one spot and then
proceeding to another, like a kestrel, and at other times
standing stationary on the margin of the water, and then
darting like a kingfisher on a fish. In our own country
the larger titmouse may be seen climbing branches, almost
like a creeper ; it often, like a shrike, kills small birds by
blows on the head; and I have many times seen and
heard it hammering the seeds of the yew on the branch,
and thus breaking them like a nuthatch. In North*
America the black bear was seen by Heame swimming for
hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, almost like
a whale, insects in the water ' (202).

We quite agree with the Author in acknowledging the
difficulty of this question, but that it is immaterial we can-
not at all concede. If transformations are to take place in
Nature, and animals are to become new creatures, it must
be a very important point to determine whether the
change first takes place in the structure of the animal, or
in its habits. If a land-animal is about to turn into a fish^
or a fish into a land-animal, or if a wingless animal is
about to assume wings (all cases considered quite possible
in the Theory, if indeed they are not more properly speak-
ing historical facts), it must be deeply interesting to know
whether the inclination to change precedes the altered
structure, or vice versd.

If a bear were determined to live in the depths of the
sea, before his new structure enabled him to do so, he would

^ This is the celebrated passage which in the first edition had an addi-
tional seutence now suppressed : * I see no difficulty in a race of bears
being rendered by Natural Selection, more and more aquatic in their
structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was
produced as monstrous as a whale.' In truth the passage without this
conclusion is incomplete ; for in the commencement it is stated that it is
easy for Natural Selection to fit the animal for its changed habits.

148 STRICTURES ON MR DARWIN'S THEORY,

find he had made a very serious mistake, and that Natural
Selection had induced him to make a change, not at all to
his advantage. But if, on the other hand, he were to
wait till his new marine organization, sufficiently developed,
might enable him to frequent * the deep unfathomed caves
of ocean,' then he would get on very scurvily as a bear,
and be reduced to short commons in the mountains and
forests. An animal half a bear and half a whale would be
a curious sight, or one-third bear and two-thirds whale,
or any other proportion you choose, would be beyond our
powers of imagination ; and the middle state of change for
all transforming animals must be their ' struggle for life,'
indeed, though not in the sense that Mr Darwin intends
it. This difficulty indeed is supposed to be lessened by
imagining a very long series of new animals intermediate
between the bear and the whale, and each new generation,
in a vast length of time, gradually becoming more and
more aquatic in tastes and habits, till from an amphibious
animal a true whale was at last elaborated. This hypothesis,
nearly as respectable as an ordinary Fairy tale, must be
left as it is, for it needs no comment, but still the question
would remain to be answered, does ' modification of stnic-
ture ' precede habit, or habit go before modification. Who
shall answer this question ? Lamarck gives the precedence
to habit ; and according to his theory, effort and inclination
produce a change in organization : but with either, or with
all the expositors of this school, this is certain, that there
never was a design on the part of the Creator to produce a
whale or any other animal, in order to sustain any pre-
determined character in Nature ; no land-animal ever
schemed to become a whale, nor did any fish devise the
means of living in the wntor, nor did any Creative Intel-

STRICTURES ON MR DARWIN'S THEORY. U9

lect ever imagine the form, life, and attributes of any
animal — organized beings are as they are by accidental
modifications, of which Natural Selection has taken ad-
vantage.

But in the passage before us Mr Darwin intimates that
if an animal has more than one habit, if it allows itself two
or more occupations, or indulges in more than one amuse-
ment, this is to be considered as indicative of an approach-
ing change of organization : thus the tyrant fly-catcher is
probably advancing to the kingfisher, and it is doubtful
whether the titmouse will be changed into a creeper, a
shrike, or a nuthatch.

We could suggest similar suspicious circumstances : the
reindeer is known occasionally to devour the hamser, an
intelligible indication of his change some day into a car-
nivorous animal ; and the dog now and then eats grass, a
not improbable hint that he in due time may become a
graminivorous animal, and take his place in some new de-
velopment of the ovine race, when the struggle for exist-
ence will simultaneously exterminate all the existing breeds
of sheep.

We ourselves have seen buflfalos immersed in the water,
and keeping their muzzles just above the stream, for hours
together ; and though this did not suggest to us the pro-
bability of their transformation into any great fish, yet,
possibly. Natural Selection had her eye upon them, and
was slowly bringing about the change that is to be !

Perhaps this interesting question has been already settled
for us by Shakespeare, who, as he rarely missed any subject,
seems not to have overlooked the possibilities of Natural
Selection. In the Midsummer s Night's Dream he first gives
the ass's head to Bottom, and then represents Bottom as

150 STRICTURES ON MR DARWIN'S THEORY.

manifesting asinine inclinations. ' Methinks I have a
great desire for a pottle of hay ; good hay, sweet hay hath
no fellow.' The rule then, after all, seems to be that when
a man is turned into an ass he then begins to have asinine
thoughts. In other words, the structure precedes the
habit.

Now, in discussing all these wonders, it is to be remem-
bered that the whole system is proposed as a creed, and
that belief, and the necessity of belief in things which do
not appear, is very frequently urged by the learned author.
How often, how very often, does he make use of the ex-
pression, *I see no difficulty in believing,* and almost
always when the thing to be believed is most startling, and
we may add too, impossible : * credo quia impossibile est '
is a maxim greatly needed in this Theory, and we are
again and again reminded that we must believe certain
propositions, without expecting any proof.

In the great principle of all. Transformation, this is in-
sisted on as a sine qua non, ' In order that any great
amount of modification should in the course of time be
produced, it is necessary to believe that when a variety has
once arisen, it again varies, after perhaps a long inter\'al of
time, and that its varieties, if favourable, are again pro-
duced, and so onwards ' (89).

This, in fact, amounts to taking the whole Theory on
credit. If we believe this, we believe, of course, all the
rest ; proofs we cannot have, and therefore we must accept
that which is offered us, assertion as a substitute for proof;
a very easy method, doubtless, of establishing a new
system, but quite unique in a scientific inquiry.

But this method is again and again proposed to us : * We
may account for the distinctness of birds from all other

STRICTURES ON MR DARWIN'S THEORY. 151

vertebrate animals by the belief that many ancient forms of
life have been utterly lost ' (463).

If utterly lost they never can be found ; they never have
been found, and they exist only in the pages of Mr Darwin's
book. But the demands of this creed sometimes place the
author in a very awkward predicament, as for instance,
when he'says, ' we may readily believe that the unknown
progenitor of the vertebrata possessed many vertebrae '
(469). Now the context requires that the 'many' ver-
tebrae should mean many more than are now found in the
vertebrata : so then, vertebrae began all at once ! ' the un-
known progenitor,' the first of this class, did not acquire
his vertebrae by the slow process of Natural Selection,
through untold ages, but had all his vertebrae, per salium,
and more too than his descendants.' We should have
expected to hear, as in harmony with the rest of the
* system, that vertebrae began from a rudiment — a rudiment
worked into a sketch of a vertebra ; and after some million
of years a series of vertebrae produced for the benefit of
the animal — ^but no, a whole series of vertebrae all started
into being for 'the unknown progenitor.' Here, then,
surely was a creation! here was a miracle! the animal
made at once for the needs of his life, the very thing which
Mr Darwin abominates, and tells us would be fatal to his
system.

But in these strictures on Natural Selection we must not
forget the co-ordinate principle of Struggle for Life. These
two agents have, according to the Theory, produced all
the . phenomena of living beings. Natural Selection does
not, in any instance, work alone ; in proportion as she pro-
duces, the Struggle for Life destroys. It is the object of
the one to improve organized beings, and of the other to

152 STRICTURES ON MR DARWIN'S THEORY.

remove those which show no tendency to improvement : a
plant or animal relatively unimproved is infallibly exter-
minated; all progressive beings destroy the stationary
members of their family.

These two principles are, as we have seen, two personifi-
cations, two metaphors, two figures of speech. It is, how-
ever, an error and a deception of language to represent
them as distinct, as the real meaning of one is an acci-
dental change of organization, and of the other the ad-
vantages resulting from that change. There must be some
agent to struggle, and this can only be the * modified
organization.' Non-change is relatively nothing, an unim-
proved animal or plant is simply passive. Non-change is
non-improvement, according to the Theory, and the unim-
proved perish.

'In looking at Nature,' says Mr Darwin, 'it is most
necessary to keep in mind that every single organic being
around us lives by a struggle at some period of its life '
(70). 'Battle with battle must ever be recurring with
varying success, and yet in the long run the forces are so
nearly balanced, that the face of nature remains uniform
for long periods of time, though assuredly the merest trifle
would often give the victory to one organic being over
another' (7G). ' All organic beings are striving to seize on
each place in the economy of nature ; if any one species
does not become modified and improved in a corresponding
degree with its competitor it will soon be exterminated'
(107).

Surely this statement is a strange perversion of the
realities of nature. It is indeed certain that the destructive
principle, the Shevah mystery of creation, is actively at
work to repress the redundancy of existence, and that an

STRICTURES ON MR DARWIN'S THEORY. 153

immense amount of animal life is sacrificed every hour of
every day, on the earth, and in the waters, and in the air,
to say nothing of trees and plants continually consumed
by various animals; but this is very different from the
demands of the Theory, different in principle and different
in action.

On the principle of course we cannot agree ; according
to our view, destruction is as much a plan of Nature as
existence; it is indeed one convincing proof amongst
many of the design apparent in Nature. Life has been
given in infinite forms, and with it a check to the excess
of life ; though the very check is, in another view, a pre-
determined method of sustaining life, for the animal that
perishes is the food of the animal that destroys it. In
one sense we may say that all animal life is sustained by
destruction, by the consumption of vegetables or animals.
But the destruction is not a blind accident without a de-
sign, but a well-calculated plan, or, if ever apparently not
answering the object of the design, failing in temporary
and exceptional instances rather from its want of energy
than from its too great activity— as for instance in the
occasional overwhelming increase of locusts.*

® The principle of struggle for life, supposed by Mr Darwin, is not de-
struction acting as a well-considered balance to keep down the excess of
life, but an accidental circumstance out of which come forth new forms of
life. His system of extermination is invented merely to account for the
appearance of new species in the way of transformation, by getting out of
the way the pretended predecessors of the last-formed species. The
real struggle for existence which in some cases may be observed in nature,
produces a totally different result, as M. Tremaux has well observed ; it
does not evoke new forms of life, but is equally and impartially injurious
to all the beings engaged in the struggle. Any one may see the phe-
nomenon in a thickly planted wood. There a struggle for existence really
does take place, that is, each tree does its best to reach the light and air,
and find an expanse for its ramification. The result is not the formation
of a new tree, with improvements enabling it to take the place of its con.

154 STRICTURES ON MR DARWIN'S THEORY.

It is probable that there is scarcely an organized being
that has not some antagonist to its prosperity ; but, never-
theless, the weakest as well as the strongest thrive and
prosper; the lion and the hare, the eagle and the wren,
the shark and the pilchard keep their ancient positions in
the ranks of life ; accidents, disappointments, and dangers
may sometimes be their lot, but extermination of their
species is wholly improbable.

In the sea where a vast majority of the inhabitants are
carnivorous, the principle of destruction is most active, one
species preying on another in a series of slaughters ; but
slaughter is not extermination, and though it may go on at
a frightful rate, if numbers are counted, yet in the end the
balance of life will remain the same. Few animals can
suffer so largely from numerous enemies as the herring, —
hundreds of millions are devoured by other fishes and by
the birds, and hundreds of millions are captured by man.
This, if called a struggle for existence, (a struggle in
which there is no resistance or effort of any sort,) will
always have a certain termination. The herring will be
victorious, and the race will not be exterminated.

And how is this ? the animal has not been improved in
any wonderful way to enable it to confront its dangerous
destiny, it has no defensive or offensive apparatus, it is
easily captured, and in certain seasons is apparently indif-
ferent to its pursuers, allowing them to approach, without
any effort to escape ; it is a simple unarmed animal, neg-

potitors, but an injury mutually inflicted by all the trees on one another.
In all the vast woods of Nature^s domain, or in those planted by man, who
ever heard of this struggle issuing in a newly-invented tree qualified to
master all its competitors ? Myriads of trees perish, after a hard and pre-
carious existence, for want of space, but no new rival springs up to exter-
minate them. *

STRICTURES ON MR DARWIN'S THEORY. 155

lected by Natural Selection, and left to take its chance,
and yet it flourishes amazingly, and will flourish.

Mr Darwin does indeed himself acknowledge that the
forces are so neariy balanced that the face of Nature re-
mains uniform for a long period of time, i.e. till it is
changed. But how could this balance be sustained for u
' long period of time,' that is, for all the time we know
anything of, if all were left to a blind accident, and there
had been no calculation in contriving the antagonistic
principles of life and destruction ?

If there is a balance that has, for unknown ages, pre-
served the order of Nature in its just proportions, surely
this must be the result of some profound calculation which
could grapple with the whole abstruse problem, the un-
known number of which was to be found only in futurity ;
for if Natural Selection, which is in fact identical with
chance, be supposed to have produced the destroyers, how
is it possible to imagine that at the end of thousands of
years, there should be no mistake, and that the face of
Nature should remain uniform. This is believing in the
old story of the atoms of Epicurus, and their accidental
wisdom. Natural Selection acts for the benefit of indi-
viduals only, and has no general plan for the good of all,
of this we are frequently reminded, but here is a system of
events at any rate, if plan it may not be called, which has,
in spite of infinite combinations and contrarieties, and
circumstances which no ordinary foresight could take into
calculation, brought out undiminished and unimpaired,
through all the hazards of time, the original harmony of
Nature.

If for a moment we think of all destructive genera of

156 STRICTURES ON MB DARWIN'S THEORY,

animals, all of which, according to the theory, have been
produced fortuitously by Natural Selection, the chances
would be almost infinite against all these creatures having
been turned out loose into Nature by mere accident, to
live by destruction, and yet at the end of ages appearing
to be neither too many nor too few.

Here then again we^ say, and we shall still have to re-
peat it, that Mr Darwin proposes an intelligent and saga-
cious scheme without an intellect that could have devised
it ; we are told that the balance is well-poised, but there
is no mind to inspect or maintain the balance; and a
wonderful problem has been solved without calculation.

We are told that ' the modified offspring from the more
highly improved branches in the line of descent will, it is
probable; often take the place of, and so destroy, the earUer
and less improved branches' (125); but how can Mr
Darwin undertake to say that any animal is *lcss im-
proved ' than it ought to be ; and what does he mean by
improving animals ? Is there any animal not rightly and
adequately organized for the position it occupies in Nature?
What animal will Mr Darwin name which needs improve-
ment, in what respect is it deficient, and what improve-
ment would he suggest ? Nay, has he not himself said,
when pressed by another argument, * Who will pretend
that he knows the natural history of any organic being
sufficiently well to say whether any particular change
would be to its advantage?' (139) ; and in another passage,
where he is still harder pressed, he, for the occasion, aban-
dons his Theory, and comes round to our side of the ques-
tion : ' What advantage would it be to an intestinal
worm, or even to an earth-worm, to be highly organized?'
(135). This is just what we ask, and applying this ques-

STRICTURES ON MR DARWIN'S THEORY. 157

tion to the whole scale of being, we ask what advantage
would it be to improve the organization of a tapir, a pig,
a camel, a bustard, an ostrich, or any of those animals
which we have seen transformed in this theory ?

But mark the inconsistency ! Though Mr Darwin can
ask these questions of common sense when it suits his
purpose, yet he tells us, in plain contradiction to these
sentiments, that *the ultimate result will be that each
creature will tend to become more and more improved in
relation to its condition of life.' ' This improvement will
inevitably lead to the gradual advancement of the organ-
ization of the greater number of beings throughout the
world' (133).

If this general improvement should ever take place,
when all creatures will thus be advanced to the limits of
perfectibility, there will be no more Natural Selection, for
she will have done her work, and consequently there will
be no more Stniggle for Life. Creatures will not be
w^aging battle within battle to maintain their position, and
in fact all the destroyers will disappear, and they will be
transformed into some superior position ' by an advance-
ment of the brain for intellectual purposes ' (134), and even
the intestinal worm will perhaps be in a fair way to study
logic and propound theories.

Such are the bright prospects which this system holds
out to us !

We have then enough before us to understand that the
whole system is based on the progressive improvement of
organization, and that without this, the ingeniously con-
structed fabric would fall immediately into niins. The
basis however rests on three assumptions.

1. That the phenomena of life are accidental.

158 STRICTURES ON MR DARWIITS THEORY.

2. That organization has needed improvement.

3. That improvement has really taken place.

Not one of these propositions falls within the compass
of scientific physiology; they all belong rather to the
speculative theories of ancient philosophy, and to such
disquisitions and dogmas as we see in the Timaeus of
Plato. They are not capable of proof by induction from
experience, and are simply dogmas, to be dismissed to
that department of literature to which they properly ap-
pertain.

In the mean time it is instructive to observe that Mr
Darwin not only confesses that there is a great difficulty
in determining the direction which future improvement is
to take, but that he himself, who so confidently assures
us that it is to be, speaks with hesitation of the nature of
this improvement, only he inclines to think it will be in the
direction of human intellect, by an improvement of the
brain. Now, if it is difficult to guess, and impossible to
assert, the future destinies of improvement, surely it must
be not less difficult to point out the line that it has taken.
If we could be absolutely certain of the direction it has
taken, we might speak with some confidence of the direction
it will take ; if we knew one we might plausibly speculate
on the other, the knowledge of either end of this supposed
scale would help us to reason on the other ; but in all this
great agitation about continually advancing improvement
by accidental * modifications,' Mr Darwin has not given
us one single instance of real improvement in any
species, lie has told us of transformations many, but of
improvements nothing. A transformed animal is not an
improved one. A tapir changed into a horse (a favourite
metamorphose in the Theory), is not an improved animal.

STRICTURES ON MR DARWIN'S THEORY. 159

but a new one. If an elephant were changed into an
Arabian steed, it would not be an improved elephant, it
would have lost a large measure of its intellect and almost
all its strength, and would simply be a horse, neither more
nor less.

A horse endowed even with the gift of speech and with
human reason to direct that speech, would not be im-
proved — it would be an importunate monster ; no longer a
laborious servant, but an irksome and offensive prodigy.
It is impossible to entertain seriously the idea of im-
proving any animal, or adding to the advantages of its
existing organization : it is as misplaced and audacious as
to undertake the task of its creation. No mental aber-
ration can be greater than to indulge the imagination with
an improvement of Nature. We ask then, has the im-
provement hitherto advanced in the direction of human
intellect? and if it really is to advance steadily in that
path, what will become of all living creatures when all are
as intellectual as man ? They either must all become men
in form as well as in brain, or with improved brains must
continue to be quadrupeds, birds, fishes, and insects. What
a preposterous and outrageous dream have we got into!
either man the only animal on the face of the earth ; or
all animals intellectual and rational as man, and endowed
also with language, their unquestionable heritage if they
are to enjoy human reason. Can nonsense go beyond
this ? and yet is not this a legitimate, nay, an inevitable
deduction from the antecedent propositions?

It may perhaps be a matter of surprise that the Theory
should have tacked to it this strange appendage, which at
first sight might seem superfluous, and not demanded by
the argument. It might be thought quite enough to insist

160 STRICTURES ON MB DABWJITS THEORY.

on that which has been, to be satisfied with the wonderful
transactions of unknown and unwitnessed ages, but why
launch out into the depths of futurity, that dark ocean for
which there is no card ? But in truth the Theory impera-
tively demands an imagined future, as much as it has in-
sisted on an imagined past. Without this prospect of
advancing improvement terminating in perfection, we
should have a system teaching us that all beings have for
millions of figes been steadily improving, but that now the
process has entirely ceased — that the Sabbath has been
reached, and now at last * all is very good.' Or, if things
are not now perfect, we must be content with Nature as it
is, with myriads of species all distinct from one another,
innumerable multitudes lingering in the lowest grades,
and life rising up by gradations in distinct phases of supe-
rior exhibitions. What then has the system done for us,
if it has progressed thus far, and now stands still ? What
has been gained if tapirs and elephants have been turned
into horses, beat's into whales, bustards into ostriches,
logger-headed ducks into sea-swallows ; if still the tapirs,
the elephants, the horses, the bears, the whales, and the
others exist apart, just as if nothing had been accomplished
in the way of metamorphose ? If we are now in a state of
rest, and there is to be no more change, then all the
transmutations hitherto effected have been merely separate
feats of magic in individual cases, and, for aught we can
see to the contrary, things would have been just as well, if
none of these alleged changes had taken place.

The Theory therefore imperatively requires that nature
should be on the move, and continually advancing. The
Theory must have this corollary tacked to it, and though
it may be as incommodious as can well be imagined.

aTRICTURES ON MR DARWIN'S THEORY, 161

there is no way of escaping from it. ' Each creature
will tend to become more and more improved in life,
and this improvement will lead to the gradual advance-
ment of the organization of beings throughout the world/
and the direction of this improvement will be, ' by an ad-
vancement of the brain for intellectual purposes.'

Let not Mr Darwin's disciples then wmce at the con-
clusion of this their System. It may take a long time to
effect it, a period perhaps as long or longer than that which
has elapsed from the Silurian era to the present day, but in
the end all creatures will be rational as men : the volvox
globator may, after an incalculable series of changes, finish
his career by taking the chair of mental and moral
philosophy, a sponge may become a professor of geology,
and even a gander, that * animal of whose aptitude to
mutability Mr Darwin most despairs, may nib his own
quilb, and sit down to write a learned volume of a new
exposition of nature.

But the Theory has its exigencies, and as is often the
case in a deviation from probability, a further advance
into the improbable becomes unavoidable. Thus Natural
Selection has been compelled to take into association the
Struggle for Life, which some might be disposed to think
could be dispensed with : for it would be argued, why in
the case of the improvement of a plant or animal does it
follow as a necessary consequence that all the unimproved
beings of the cognate species must perish? Supposing
that Natural Selection were to produce a new species of
violet, why must all the old-fashioned violets be forthwith
exterminated? would not the world be large enough for
the two sorts of flowers ? or granting the formation of a

♦ * The goose seems to have a singularly iuflexible organization' (43).

1G2 STRICTURES ON MB DARWIN'S THEORY.

new animal, by transmutation, and a great improvement
on the species nearest allied to it, why must its unimproved
neighbour be swept out of existence ?

Now the reason of this apparent non-sequitur is, that in
the Theory it is requisite to account for all the intermedi-
ate animals which * we are to believe * have existed between
two creatures now apparently unlike, but which, we are
told, have sprung from one progenitor. In connecting
the tapir with the horse there may have been thousands
(in some cases Mr Darwin says tens of thousands) of inter-
mediate animals, connecting the two extremes by slow
approximations. Now all these have disappeared (that is,
they cannot be found), they have been * exterminated,' and
this has been effected by the Struggle for Life, and so of
all the missing links between all animals. In such a
scheme the Struggle for Life has had enough to do, and
as the system of nature continues as it was, and as varie-
ties now existing are commencing species, and as all beings
arc on the high road of improvement, in which very great
changes have yet to be accomplished, and as Natural Se-
lection and the Struggle for Life have worked together in-
separably from the beginning of things, they cannot now
be separated, and thus it is that the Stniggle still con-
tinues, and that the battle for life is going on as vigorously
as ever, even in cases where not the shghtest sign of it can
be discovered, and where all seems tranquil, peaceful, and
secure.

' If my Theory be true,' says Mr Darwin, * numberless
intermediate varieties, linking closely all the species of the
same group together, must assuredly have existed ; but
the very process of Natural Selection constantly tends, as
has been often remarked, to externiiuate the parent forms

STRICTURES ON MR DARWIN'S THEORY, 103

aud the intermediate links' (197). And, again, 'all the
intermediate forms between the earlier and later states, as
well as the original parent-species itself, will generally
tend to become extinct' (127).

In a few words, then, all this is devised, to answer the
question, what has become of all the links of your chain,
the progenitor, and all the intermediate forms? — They
have been exterminated. There is a principle in Nature
which cflfects this, and it is called the * Struggle for Life/

CHAPTER XI.

THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION.

If the lofty title to Mr Darwin's book, ' The Origin of
Species/ could be sustained, we should indeed be favoured
with a revelation, which has hitherto been supposed to be
beyond the reach of human cognizance. We should be
introduced to the beginning of things, and behold all the
secrets of the primordial laboratory disclosed to our gaze,
beyond the utmost dreams of our curiosity, and the
farthest aspirations of our hope.

Mr Darwin does indeed profess to take us very far back
into the night of antiquity, before the dawn began, vastly
beyond all other exponents of science, even to ages long
before the formation of the lowest Silurian rocks, an era
of which geology knows nothing. Under his guidance *
we suppose that we shall in these hitherto undiscovered
regions reach the very beginning of life, and see the first
organic creature constructed, and assume the properties
and actions of life — be made acquainted, in fact, with its
'origin.' But we are disappointed, we advance, as we
suppose, to reach the origin, but when we have gone as far
as our learned guide can lead us, we only find a blank
wall ; an insuperable barrier blocks up our path, and we
are not permitted to find the origin. *In all organic

THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION. 1G5

beings/ says Mr Darwin, ' as far as is at present known,
the germinal vescicle is the same, so that every individual
organic being starts from a common origin. Professor
Asa Grey has remarked, the spores and other reproductive
bodies of many of the lower algae may claim to have first a
. characteristically animal, and then an unequivocal vegetable,
existence. Therefore, on the principle of Natural Se-
lection with divergence of character, it does not seem in-
credible, that from some such low and intermediate form
both animals and plants may have been developed, and if
WE ADMIT THIS, wc must admit that all the organized
beings which have ever lived upon earth, may have de-
scended from some one primordial form ?

Certainly, if we admit that animals and plants may
have been ' developed ' from a spore of the lowest sea-
weed, we must admit that all of them may have descended
from a similar form ; there can be no difficulty in the pro-
position after the first admission ; but after all, this is not
the Origin of Species, for we have to learn the origin and
the formation of this primordial spore. It may be ' first
characteristically animal,' and 'then unequivocally vege-
table,' but whence did it derive these double qualities ? It
was the most marvellous of all beings to have within itself
the potential existences of all animals and all vegetables
that ever were to be ; to possess qualities which by ' de-
velopment ' were ultimately to expand into an elephant, a
whale, a palm-tree, an eagle, a crab, a butterfly, and a
man, and therefore we anxiously inquire whence came this
spore ? Who or what were its parents ? How was it made ?
How did it acquire the double quality of animal and vege-
table? In all ordinary discussions of such subjects we
should say that the spore of the lowest algae sprung from

1C6 TUB GEOLOGICAL QUESTION.

an alga, or from the sea-weed to which it belongs : but
whence did that alga come — from another spore, and so
on, either ad in/imtum, or from some first cause of its ex-
istence ?

Obviously, then, this is the origin of nothing, for Mr
Darwin's 'primordial form' as much needs an origin,
which he has not explained to us, as any of the animals
that may have sprung from the primordial form.

Creation he cannot introduce, for it is the object of his
book to exclude creation. Neither can he invoke Natural
Selection, for there was nothing to select, when there was
no life ; neither can he, as a last resource, betake himself
to Lamarck's convenient cloud of * Spontaneous genera-
tion,' for against that Theory Mr Darwin has protested ;
therefore nothing remains for him but to say that the first
primordial form was, — to confess his ignorance of its
origin, and to be content to say that it came into existence
in a way that he is utterly unable to explain.

In this position we meet him and shake hands. This
is exactly what vvc say : we are convinced that this was
the origin of the primordial sea-weed, it came into exist-
ence in a way that we cannot explain. We have not the
most distant idea of the process, it is utterly inconceivable
to us, only we are sure that there is a Power which could
and did effect that which we are unable to comprehend.

But all animals and vegetables spring from this one
primordial form. In what way did the first springing
commence ; did the animal quality start first, or the vege-
table? How did the movement commence, and in what
direction ? The first step in this process, we are told, was
* on the principle of Natural Selection, with divergence of
character;' easy words these to pronounce, but not so

THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION. 167

easy to explain. However, .there was some * divergence of
chsp-acter ' in the first spore : that is, it began to change
its character, — some * modification,' some * development,'
some ' plastic ' propensity appeared in our great Ancestor,
and he produced — what ? an improved spore certainly, — it
could not be beyond that. But how could Natural Selec-
tion work here? where was the competition, where was
the Struggle for Life ? The new spore had to struggle
with itself, or perhaps we can imagine that the great
XncesioT produced (ho\v we will not say) ' several modified,'
spores, and thus the struggle began amongst the family,
the unimproved ones were exterminated, and an advanced
race began. A race of what? what new vegetable or
what first animal ? that history does not reveal. Then
male and female had to be developed, Natural Selection
formed the two sexes, made some male and some female,
invented all the mysteries of reproduction, and set the
world a-going till the process finished in man.

Now Mr Darwin has told us that all this does ' not
appear incredible,' and nevertheless he soon contradicts
himself in these words : ' a difficulty has been advanced,
that, looking on the dawn of life, when all organic beings,
as we may imagine, presented the simplest structure, how
could the first steps in advancement, or in the difierentia-
tion and specialization of parts have arisen? I can make
no sufficient answer, and can only say that as we have no
facts to guide us, all speculation on the subject would be
baseless and useless' (137).

If Mr Darwin presents us with a history of the begin-
ning of life which he frankly acknowledges he cannot ex-
plain, and for which he has no facts to guide him, how
can hp tell us that such a history is * not incredible?' what

168 THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION.

can this mean but that he requires us to believe an in-
vention of his own imagination, and that we are to accept
on trust that which he plainly tells us is inexplicable ?

Now in the above passage we see the failure of the
system, and its ingenious author check- mated by his own
acknowledgment. *No one ought to feel surprise/ he
adds, *at much remaining unexplained in the Origin of
Specivs, if due allowance be made for our profound ignorance
of the mutual relation of the inhabitants of the world
during the many past epochs of its history' (137).

If much remain unexplained about the Origin of Species,
then Mr Darwin has given a false title to his book, ' On
the Origin of Species by * Natural Selection, and the pre-
ser\'ation of favoured races in the Struggle for Life ; ' for
when we approach to the origin we cannot learn what it
is ; and when, after that, we seek for information in the
first steps in advancement. Natural Selection is fairly
abandoned, and Mr Dai win tells us he can give no answer
to our inquiries, for he has no facts to guide him, and all
speculation on the subject would be baseless and useless !

Now when the Origin of Species is the question, and we
come to such a confession as this, can we help concluding
that the author acknowledges his own defeat ? the inge-
nious helmsman has steered the Theory on the rocks, and
there it must await its destiny.

In this most important part of the discussion it is deeply
interesting to find not only an acknowledgment of the
failure of the Theory, but to meet with a profession of that

® The title chosen by the author for his book does not avoid the raeta-
plior, and in tliat renpect is in keeping with the rest of the volume — 'fa-
vouH'd races,' — who favours them ? or who has shown them favour? They
are the elect of Mr Darwin's system ; Natural Selection, another metaphor,
educutcH the elect and preserves them.

THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION. 169

principle which, if duly attended to, would have saved the
author from this dilemma? 'when we have no facts to
guide us, and when we are profoundly ignorant of the
mutual relation of the inhabitants of the world, during the
many past epochs of its history, all speculation on the
Origin of Species would be baseless and useless.'

This is precisely the true state of the case, and with this
conclusion we heartily agree — only, be it observed, that
this principle contradicts the author's practice, as that
which he attempts all through, from the first page to the
last, is to give us a clear sketch of the mutual relation of
the inhabitants of the earth during the many past epochs
of its history. He tells us of their transformations, he
describes to us how animals have been changed into other
forms, he talks of their improvement, of their plastic
qualities, of their modifications, of the changes of varieties
into new species ; he says that transformation has been
going on from the dawn of life, is now going on, and will
go on to ultimate perfection ; he intimates the classes of
animals which have been transformed *in ten thousand
generations;' in short, he professes a perfect acquaintance
with their general history in the past epochs of geological
formation, and insists on the achievements of Natural
Selection in bringing on animated nature from the be-
ginning of things to the present hoiu* ; is this * profound
ignorance of the mutual relations of the inhabitants of the
earth during the many past epochs of its history?' Let
the reader judge.

It is however pleasant to find that there are occasions
when the force of truth can bring the author to admit
those sober reflections which common sense demands,
which must be the basis of all truth, and which ought to

170 THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION.

guide the most powerful as well as the most ordinary in-
tellect.

But the approach to the dawn of life, and the search
for the primordial form, bring us to a position where we
can discover something real ; for ivhither can we turn to
investigate the early appearance of organic beings but to
the records of geology? The earth, as it has been well
said, has left us her autobiography, jtfid this we must
study to search as far as we can the epochs of her ancient
formations. All the successive records of this great work
it is our business carefully to consult, that we may under-
stand the story of life, by a patient and cautious research.
This labour has been undertaken by many an able student,
and the story is now so well understood that the general
outline of it will scarcely require any farther emendation.
On the grand plan, and most of the details, there is a
general harmony of sentiment. Geology is an established
and consistent science. '

We shall now see how Mr Danvin confronts the testi-
mony of geology. * If my Theory be true/ says he, ' it is
indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was
deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably
far longer than the whole interval from the Silurian age to
the present day ; and that during these vast, yet quite un-
Icnoivn periods of timey the world swarmed with living
creatures ' (333). This surely is casting the whole system
on the hazard of a die, it is a bold defiance and brow-beat-
ing of the evidence of nature, and is the most desperate
and daring proposition ever yet risked in all the annals of
science. * My Theory must be true,' it affirms, * and there-
fore it is beyond dispute that the records of geology are
of no account. The evidence that I want is not to be had

THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION, 171

in the existing records, and therefore I affirm that there
was another world before the lowest Silurian, and that in
that unknown epoch the world was swarming with animals
according to my system/

This passage one would think must be sufficient to open
the eyes of any votary of Natural Selection, and to convince
the most ardent zealot of the hopelessness of the Theory.
Even the author himself has his misgivings, we may almost
say his despair, after this reckless declaration. ' To the
question why we do not find records of these vast primor-
dial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer — the
difficulty of understanding the absence of vast piles of
fossiliferous strata, which, on my Theory, no doubt were
somewhere* accumulated before the Silurian epoch, is very
great. The case at present must remain inexplicable, and
may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views
here entertained' (334).

The absence then of evidence in the geological record is
by the author's acknowledgment an argument so adverse
to his Theory that * he can give no satisfactory answer to
it — it is a very great difficulty — it is inexplicable — the ob-
jection is a valid argument against the views he has enter-
tained.'

A\Tiat more could we wish than this, even in a formal
recantation? the author acknowledges that the existing
evidences of Nature's records are against him, and that he
cannot get over the difficulty. But if the present state of
things is unmanageable, time to come may bring some

* This is repeated, p. 497 : * Why do we not find great piles of strata
beneath the Sihinau system, stored with the remains of tlio progenitors of
the Silurian groups of fossils ? for on my Theory such strata must some-
trhere have been dejiosited at these ancient and utterly unknown epochs of
the world's history.*

172 THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION.

relief — ' hereafter the difficulty may receive some explana-
tion/ The learned author conjectures that ' at a period
immeasurably antecedent to the Silurian epoch continents
may have existed where oceans are now spread out, and
clear and open oceans may have existed where our conti-
nents now stand' (335). He suggests that palseontological
researches modify antecedent decisions ; that fossil animals
have been discovered lower down in the rocks than was
supposed in the time of Cuvier; that we have not ex-
amined all the formations in the world ; that we have no
right to expect to find an infinite number of these fine
transitional forms which have connected all the past and
present species, we ought only to look for a few links (327) ;
that we falsely infer because certain genera have not
been found beneath a certain stage, that they did not exist
before that stage — negative evidence is worthless ; and,
lastly, we should look on the geological record as a history
of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing
dialect. Of this history we possess the last volume only,
relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume
only here apd there a short chapter has been presened,
and of each page only here and there a few lines. On this
view the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished,
or even disappear (337).

So then, notwithstanding the above acknowledgments,
the author at last talks himself into the pleasant belief that
the difficulties have disappeared ! This indeed is cha-
racteristic of^Mr Darwin's mode of reasoning. He not un-
frequcntly begins a proposition with stating the inex-
l)licable difficulties which accompany it, but finishes by
saying that he sees no great difficulty in believing in some
solution of the problem. But if all these difficulties dis-

THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION. 173

appear by the metaphor of a damaged volume, the only
one to be found of a large work, why did we not hear of
this before the author had reduced himself to the necessity
of confessing his total discomfiture? He might have
spai'ed himself that humiliation, and might thus have
brilliantly surmounted his greatest difficulty. Here Mr
Darwin reminds us of a person who, having been check-
mated in the game of chess, asks permission to take back
his piece as he sees a much better move on the board.
Let him take back his piece, we shall see what good it will
do him.

We must not however leave this last quoted passage
without a remark. When Mr Darwin says, that * of this
history we possess the last volume only,' he very dexter-
ously begs the whole question. We afiirm that the whole
series of volumes is in existence, and that the last con-
cludes with the Tertiary formation ; Mr Dai*win means
that a vast number of other volumes relating to the pre-
Silurian epoch have been lost, and that the only one re-
maining is the present record of geology, which he lumps
together as one volume, and calls it the last. His
library, as well as his pre-Silurian world, exists in the
land of dreams — our library is complete, and is in exist-
ence on the solid earth that now is. This is the difference
between us in this matter. Our first volume is in the
Silurian rocks, and this he calls his last ; if he will pro-
duce only a few pages of an earlier volume, we shall be
very glad to add them to our collection.

But what then, we may ask, is the use of geology, that
science hitherto so much admired for the accuracy of its
proofs and the certainty of its progress, if we do not
accept the records that it ofiers as they are, but insist

174 THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTTOX.

upon others as they ought to be? If we appeal from
what we see and know to that which can neither be seen
nor known ? if we set aside the eWdence of the senses and
substitute that of the imagination ? If this be pemiittcd
within the precincts of science, what can be the limit to
idle and profitless speculations? who after this need
despair of advancing any theory however childish or pre-
posterous? Supposing that some learned man felt it
incumbent on himself to prove that ' there were giants in
those days/ in the days near the beginning of things, and
that he were to write a learned and ingenious book on
the subject (such as an ingenious man might write on any
theme), investing his hypothesis with an air of plausibility
till he came to the evidence of geology. Here a barrier
stops his progress ; how docs he surmount it ? lie tells
us that if his Theory be true, it is indisputable, that in un-
known ages long before the lowest Siliman formation, the
earth swarmed with giants thirty feet highland that their
remains are to be found in those rocks which ' somewhere
were formed ' in that most distant epoch ; but that wc
are not to be astonished at the actual deficiencv of the
proof, for wc do but possess the last volume of geological
record, all the previous ones having been irretrievably
lost.

In what does this difier from Mr Darwin's process of
reasoning ? Siirelv in nothinj]^ but the Theorv itself, which
is far more difficult to be digested than the prc-Silurian
giants.

There arc occasions nevertheless when Mr Darwin can
refer to the records of geology as affording uK)>t ample proof
for any particular point he may have in hand. ' Geology,'
says he, 'plainly tells us that small genera have in the lapse

THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION. 175

of time often increased greatly in size, and that larger
genera have often come to their maxima, declined and
disappeared ' (59).

Here a great deal is revealed to us in the few lines of
the few pages of the only remaining volume ; it is in fact
a history of the past epochs of life, in a certain aspect ; but
it does not seem to have occurred to the learned author that
if we learn so much as this from geology, if we are thus
correctly instructed in the rise and fall of the large and
small genera, it is inconceivable that we should not at the
same time have Keen favoured with some evidence of the
existence of those infinite gradations of species required by
his Theory. If there were ten thousand or one thousand
intermediate forms connecting the tapir and the horse, both
of which we know first appear in the Tertiary formation,
how comes it that we find none of these connecting links ?
Let not Mr ' Darwin betake himself to his pre-Silurian
' world, and to his ' rocks somewhere to be found,' for the
tapir and the horse are harmoniously together in the
Tertiary ; they certainly did not exist previously, they were
not in the cretaceous system, still less amongst the terrific
reptiles of the Oolite, but they were where they are found
to have been, in circumstances which suited their existence.
There we find them amongst their congeners in the Ter-
tiary, but we do not find the many thousand Imks which
the Theory requires to unite them ; * what geological re-
search has not revealed us,' says the author, ' is the
former existence of infinitehj numerous gradations, as fine
as existing varieties, connecting all known species ; and
this not being efiected by geology is the most obvious of
the many objections which may be urged agaiust my views '
(324).

176 THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION.

Surely these two passages have a curious aspect when
thus placed in juxta-position, the first affirming that geology
tells us truly the history of small and large genera, the
second that it has told us nothing of the infinitely numer-
ous gradations connecting all known species. It would
tax the ingenuity of the learned Author to reconcile these
discordant propositions.

In the mean time let it be observed and not forgotten,
that Mr Darwin here fully acknowledges that he has no
geological evidence wherewith to prove his Theory.

Let us now examine the few lines of the remaining vol-
ume and see what it tells us. As it is beyond the Silurian
era that Mr Darwin would take us, but as thither it is im-
possible to follow him, we will go as far as we can, down
to the Silurian rocks, and there gather such evidence as
can be collected.

The oldest Silurian strata, the first which contain any
fossil remnants, rest on older rocks still, and of them Pro-
fessor Owen thus speaks : * There is an enormous series of
sub-aqueous sediment, originally composed of mud, sand, or
pebble, the successive bottom of a former sea, derived from
pre-existing rocks, which has not undergone any change
from heat, and in which no trace of organic life has yet been
detected. These non-fossiliferous, non-crystalline sediment-
ary beds form, in all countries where they have yet been
examined, the base rocks, on which the Cambrian and the
oldest Silurian strata rest — whether they be significative of
ocean abysses never reached by the remains of coeval living
beings, or whether they truly indicate the period antecedent
to the beginning of life on this planet, are questions of the
deepest significance, and demanding much further observ-
ation before they can be authoritatively answered ' (Pala;-

THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION, 177

ont. 116). The first evidence therefore that is offered to
lis is, as far as is known by observation in all parts of the
world, an absence of organized beings in the basal rocks
of the Silurian system. * No trace of organic life has as
yet been detected/ — and it is owing to this circumstance
that it has been proposed to name the base-formation,
azoic, or destitute of life, in contra-distinction to the upper
systems, which are all more or less fossiliferous.

The question therefore when we come to these lowest
rocks is, not whether they swarm with fossils of extinct life
or follow still older rocks, not discovered, swarming with
fossils of plants and animals, according to the Theory, but
whether we are justified in affirming that they truly indi-
cate a period antecedent to the beginning of life in this
planet. The evidence, as far as it is now known, would
justify us in affirming that life had not begun during the
formation of those rocks ; and though it is strictly in keep-
ing within the rules of investigation which science demands,
not to affirm as much without more direct proof; yet how
far apart is this from affirming on the other hand, without
a tittle of evidence, and indeed with the whole evidence
the other way, that before the lowest Silurian stratum was
deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or possibly far
longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the
present day; and that during that vast and unknown
period of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.

The evidence therefore now to be obtained does not
favour Mr Darwin ; it bars out his Theory at the very
beginning, inexorably excludes Natural Selection, which
has no chance of ever passing these first non-fossiliferous
rocks.

The sober language of true science affirms that it cannot

178 TUE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION.

be authoritatively answered whether the base-rocks of the
Silurian system were antecedent to life in our planet.

Mr Darwin, on the contrary, authoritatively aflSrms that
it is indubitable that life swarmed in eras immensely more
ancient than the lowest Silurian strata.

Between two such statements reconciliation is impossible.
After the basal rocks in ascending order we come to the
lower Silurian, and there we find the protozoa, the fucoids,
the first form of sponges, palaeospongia, graptolites, sup-
posed tx) be compound animals of the Zoophyte order, and
some moUusca, Of these ancient forms, some of which
* scarcely deserve the name of animal,' the Trilobite is the
most interesting, a crustacean of tripartite form, and inter-
esting for its nicely jointed and curious shell, and its
elaborate eye.

All the fossils of the Silurian* system are 'eminently
marine, and consist of species and genera of Zoophytes,
radiata, mollusca, annilids, and Crustacea. It is only
towards the close of the Silurian era that any fishes ap-
pear, the first vertehrated animals. They are found in the
uppermost verge of the system, or in beds which are by
some considered as the basis of the Old Red Sandstone.

• * As yet we have no iDdication whatever of a terrestrial fauna in the
Silurian S3'8tem ; and the accumulating evidence of recent research rather
tends to dispel the hope of ever finding, in true Silurian strata, any of the
higher manifestations of vertebrate existence.* — Advanced Text Book of
Geology, p. 159.

* It is a remarkable fact that the most sedulous research in many parts
of the world has failed to discover the trace of any vertebrate animal in
the lower division of the Silurian system. All the marine animals from
Zoophytes to crustaceans, and which probably amount to more than 1000
species, already known, belong to invertebrated classes, and wo true Jish
has yet been discovered. The name Silurian marks, therefore, the first
series of fossil ifero us deposits, throughout the great mass of which no ver-
tehrated animals have been anywhere discovered.* — Murchison. Siluria,
205—40.

THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION. 179

' The earliest good evidence which has been obtained of a
vertebrate animal in the earth's crust is a spine of the
nature of the dorsal spine of the dog-fish, and a buckler
like that of a placoganoid fish, in the most recent deposits
of the Silurian period, in the formation called the upper
Ludlow Rocks' (Owen, 119).

We have then the predominance of the sea proved to us
by this evidence, and of a sea sustaining life, though that
life was dissimilar to that which now prevails in the ocean ;
and below that we have the exhibition of a period in which
no life has been discovered ; and if geology teaches us any
commencement it is here we must seek it. We cannot go
beyond the evidence.

' The fossiliferous strata occupying the lowest place in the
geological sequence, have been observed to pass, in almost
every instance, by gradual and imperceptible changes into
non-fossiliferous rocks, and for this reason, in addition to
others, it has been thought probable either that the lowest
strata were in reality the first beds deposited upon the
earth, and that the animals whose remains are found in
them were its first inhabitants, or at least that no fossil-
iferous rocks of an older date, if such exist, exhibit any im-
portant zoological changes, or contain species different
from those with which we are already acquainted '
(Ansted, 87.)

Now if the suspicion of some of our chief geologists
should be correct, that the dawn of life begins with the
lowest Silurian formation, or even near it (in the nearness
of geological time), it is obvious that the Theory is con-
futed, and that its confutation is complete; for in these
rocks we find several animal forms of independent exist-
ence, of different genera and different species, and there-

180 THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION.

fore it is impossible that so early in the appearances of life
all these separate phases should have been produced by
Natural Selection ; they must be, according to that system,
the remnants and traditionary representatives of eras
almost infinitely distant from that time — or else they must
have come into existence by some other method. But if
all these preceding eras and preceding rocks be a dream,
then those animals have come into existence not by Natural
Selection, but by other means.

This of course Mr Darwin has foreseen and provided for.
' I cannot doubt that all the Silurian Trilobites have de-
scended from some one crustacean, which must have lived
long before the Silurian age, and v^hich probably diflFered
from any known animal' (332). Less than this could not
be propounded in so critical a position of the Theory, for
if the author had 'doubted' in this emergency, there
would have been an end of the question. Here, however,
we are again referred for proof to the invisible world,
which no traveller can reach. There must have been, we
are told, an ancestral crustacean long before the Silurian
age, differing from all known animals, and from this the
Trilobite must have descended ! But what shall we say
about this indescribable monster — unlike all known animals
on land, or in sea, or in the regions of the air? It must
indeed have been most wonderful, a chimera beyond the
imagination of the poets, and^of the same genus perhaps
as the animal described by the showman, as having come
*from the undiscovered islands.' But, seriously, is not
this abasing rather than elevating science to connect it
with such speculations, which do not amount to the
dignity of a conjecture, but must be ranked with those

THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION, 181

ictions which have all the wildness without any of the in-
spiration of poetry.

*But/ says the Author, 'some of the most ancient
Silurian animals, as the Nautilus, Lingula, &c., do not
liflFer much from the living species, and it cannot, on my
:heory, be supposed ^that these old species were the pro-
jenitors of all the species and the order to which they
belong, for they do not present characters in any degree
ntermediate between them. If, moreover, they had been
:he progenitors of these orders, they would almost entirely
bave been long ago supplanted and exterminated by their
numerous and improved descendants' (id.). This, it will
be observed, is a sort of private conversation of the author
mXh himself, for what have we to do with the perplexities
and exigencies of his Theory ? Certainly according to that
Theory, here is a sad trouble and discouragement, and the
author tells us what it is. But it is only with the escape
3ut of the difficulty that we' are concerned, the breaks in
the genealogy and the non-extermination of the improved
Families are his aflFair, not ours — on these deficiencies we
only look on and smile, but again we beg leave to assure
bim that his appeal to a pre-Silurian world is no escape
at all, and that he must on the battle-field of the lowest
rocks yet discovered, either beat us or be beaten himself.

We have been told that the series of rocks which were
antecedent to the Silurian, and took a longer time for their
formation than all the rocks that have been subsequently
deposited up to the present day, were ' somewhere accu-
mulated.' Somewhere ! did ever one word yet do service
for so much as this ' somewhere ? ' It contains an un-
known world, and ages incalculable. It expresses the ex-

182 THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION.

istence of 'swarms of animals/ of forms with which we
are unacquainted, and it assures us of the evidence of their
existence in fossiUferous rocks many miles thick, if only
we could find them. But what will Mr Darwin place be-
low the basis of the Silurian rocks? after the clay-slate
system, the mica-schist system, and the gneiss system,
what other formation shall we name ? where between these
and the granite will be room for his ' somewhere ? ' If the
granite be not the general floor on which all the oldest
formations rest, it is somehow or other very inconveniently
near them, and by its position and appearance in all parts
of the world has frequently suggested the suspicion that it
is the ubiquitous substratum. Thus speaks Humboldt on
this subject.

'What we call the older Silurian strata are only the
upper portions of the solid crust of the earth. The
eruptive rocks which we see breaking through, pushing
aside, and heaving up these, arise from depths that are in-
inaccessible to us ; they exist, consequently, under the Si-
lurian strata, composed of the same association of minerals
which are familiar to us under the name of granite, augite,
and quartz porphyry, at the points where, by breaking
through, they become visible. Resting on analogies, we
may safely assume that that which at one and the same
time fills exclusive fissures in the name of veins, and
bursts through the sedimentary strata, can only be an
offset from an inferior bed. The active volcanoes of the
present day carry on their processes at the greatest depths ;
and from the strange fragments which I have found in-
cluded in streams of lava, in different quarters of the globe,
I also hold it as more than probable that a primordial

THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION. 183

granite-rock is the foundation of the great systems of
stratification which are filled with such variety of organic
remains ' (Cosmos, i. 305).

How great would have been the surprise of Humboldt
to hear of this other additional crust of the earth which
had been * accumulated somewhere/ between the earliest
non-fossiliferous rocks and the granite.

But the Theory has other diflBculties to surmount in
confronting geology, and these the author has himself
stated: *The abrupt manner in which whole groups of
species suddenly appear in certain formations has been
urged by several palaeontologists, Agassiz, Pictet, Sedgwick,
&c., as a fatal objection to the behef in the transmutation
of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same
genera or families, have really started into life at once, the
fact would be fatal to the Theory of descent with slow
modification through Natural Selection. But we con-
tinually overrate the perfection of the geological record,
and falseli/ infer, because certain genera or families have
not been found beneath a certain stage, that they did not
exist before that stage. In all cases positive palaeontological
evidence may be implicitly trusted, negative evidence is
worthless, as experience has so often shown ' (327).

Now this passage, as it clearly states the antagonism of
geological science to Mr Darwin's system, is of the highest
importance, for it amounts to this, that if that system is
true, geology, as now established, is false, and that the de-
ductions of palaeontologists must be cancelled. If we
overrate the evidence of geology, then the estimate of its
value as a teacher is erroneous, and we must, according to
this proposition, consider that the information obtained by

184 TUB GEOLOGICAL QUESTION.

it is not trustworthy. The science, in other words, has to
be re-cast and re-moulded, and it will not be a true science
till it is made to agree with the Theory.

But if, as we are assured, negative evidence in palaeon-
tology is worthless, what a violence must be done to com-
mon sense to make of it a positive one. The geologists
tell us that certain animals cannot be found in any geo-
logical formation before certain periods, and therefore
there is no evidence that they existed before those periods,
tantamount to a high probability that they did not pre-
viously exist. Mr Darwin tells us that certain animals
cannot be found before certain periods, but it is, neverthe-
less, certain that they did previously exist. With him
negative evidence is the main stay of his Theory ; and
strange it is that he who confronts us with a visionary pre-
Silurian world, for which there is only negative evidence,
and on which he bases his whole system, should turn round
on us and tell us that negative evidence in palaeontology is
worthless.

If our negative evidence is worthless, his is not less so ;
but if his negative evidence is worthless, as it is all that he
has to show, his Theory is confuted.

But if negative evidence is inadmissible in palaeontology,
if it be * worthless,' how could it ever have made one step
towards any definite deduction ? By it we are instructed
when certain organic beings existed, and when they did
not exist ; but if we do not choose to believe the negative
evidence, all is at a stand-still. How do we know that the
mammalia in the Gypsum of the Paris Basin did not exist in
the era of the Old Red Sandstone ? by negative evidence.
How do we know that the ruminantia and carnivora did
not exist in the carboniferous period ? by negative evi-

THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION. 185

dence. Who, of the most daring speculators, would ven-
ture to affirm that man existed in the Eocene era? For any-
thing we can show to the contrary, man might have been
an inhabitant of the earth at that period, but we are all
satisfied that he was not, and we are convinced by negative
evidence alone. Let, then, Mr Darwin say what he likes,
when animals cannot anywhere be discovered before a cer-
tain point in the geological series, it will be believed that
their non-appearance is owing to their non-existence ; and
it will also be believed that when we first find them in a
certain geological formation, that then ,they first began to
exist. This is the opinion of a crowd of * able geologists,
and it is the deduction of common sense.

But Mr Darwin instinctively feels that geology is his
worst enemy, and therefore, like an able tactician, he en-
deavours to damage its value and undermine its authority.
' If we admit/ says he, ' that the geological record is im-
perfect in an extreme degree^ then such facts as the record
gives, support the Theory of descent with modification '
(508).

This in plain English means thus much : ' if you can
bring yourself to disbelieve the testimony of geology, then

^ Take as an iDstance of the use made of negative evidence in geology,
the following remarks of Lyell on the secondary formations : —

' It is certainly a startling proposition to suppose that a continent
covered with vegetation, which had its forests of palm-trees and tree-ferns,
which was inhabited by large Saurians and by birds, was, neverthe-
less, entirely devoid of land quadrupeds. If the proofs were confined to
the Wealden, we might hesitate to lay much stress on mere negative evi-
dence^ since extensive deposits of the Eocene period, such as the London
clay, have as yet yielded no mammiferous fossils, and the coal-slaie of
Great Britain, after having been studied for so many years, are now only
beginning to produce the bones of Saurians ; but when we find the same
general absence of Mammalia in strata of the Oolitic and Liassic eras, we
can hardly refuse to admit, that the highest order of quadrupeds was very
feebly represented in those ages, when the small didelphis of Stonesfield
was entombed * (iv. 235).

186 THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION,

you may believe that animals have come to their present
forms by transmutation from previous ones.' When a
record is imperfect in * an extreme degree/ who could trust
it ? This is the point to which Mr Darwin would bring us.

And then again, ' the noble science of geology loses
glory from the extreme imperfection of the record. The
crust of the earth, with its embedded remains, must not
be looked at as a well-filled museum, but as a poor col-
lection made at hazard and at rare intervals ' (522).

But we must now more closely examine these state-
ments. ' Wefalselt/ infer because certain genera or fami-
lies have not been found beneath a certain stage, that they
did not exist before that stage ; ' which also reads that if
we were to state the truth, we should say that those genera
did exist before that stage. This goes a step further, we
have had the benefit of negative evidence denied us, now
it is turned against us to prove the exact opposite of that
which had hitherto been deduced from it.

If, however, there be anything clear in geology it is this,
that there has been a succession of organic beings, not
descending genealogically one from another, but appear-
ing successively in order of time ; and that there are
definite epochs where they can be first traced as existing,
and also where they disappear. Now we have the ruminants
in the miocene division of the tertiary formation, and the
felidae first appearing in the more ancient division of the
tertiary, but the most careful search has never succeeded
in discovering the slightest trace of them in the chalk
formation. Did they exist in the chalk era? certainly ^
according to Mr Darwin, because it would be impossible
that Natural Selection could have had time to produce
them in the Tertiary epoch, and the antecedent links from

THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION. 187

some progenitor are wanting, therefore we must seek for
them in periods infinitely more remote ; but by no means
must we suppose that they came into being in the era when
they first appear.

In this way there must always bedisagreement between
the records of geology and the exigencies of the Theory.
The Theory will constantly be demanding that which
geology denies, and denying that which geology affirms.
It is impossible that they ever should be reconciled.

The testimony however of physiologists on the suc-
cession of organic beings is very clear. Bufibn says : ' Qu'il
y a eu des espfeces, maintenant an^anties, dont Texistence
a pr&;^dfe celle de tons les etres actuellement vivants ou
v^g^tans — qu'on pent determiner des ^poques dans la
succession des existences qui nous ont pr^c^d& — que les
empreintes de poissons, de crustac^s, et de v^g^taux (qu'on
ne trouve qu'k de grandes profondeurs) semblent nous
indiquer que leur existence a pr^c^d^, meme de fort loin,
celle des animaux terrestres/

Cuvier observes : * Ce qui est certain, c'est que nous
sommes maintenant au moins au milieu d'une quatri^me
succession d'animaux terrestres, et qu'apr^s Tage des
reptiles, apr^ celui des palaeoth^riums, apres celui des
mammouths, des mastodontes, et des megatheriums, est
venu Tage oh Tespfece humaine, aid^e des quelques animaux
domestiques, domine et f^conde paisiblement la terre.'

M. Flourens * has well expressed this : ' That which is
the essential object, the important point, is, in effect, the
relation of strata and species, and that which that relation
demonstrates to us is that the reptiles have appeared before
the mammifers, since the reptiles are found in strata where

• Ontologie (303).

188 THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION,

the mammifers are never found — ^that the marine mam-
mifers have appearjed before the terrestrial, because the
marine mammifers are found in strata, where the terrestrial
mammifers are never found, and that is not all, this rela-
tion between strata and species proves to us, that even
with the terrestrial mammifers there has been a succession
of species, and a very remarkable succession/

This latter remark may be best explained in the words
of Cuvier : * First of all, all the genera now unknown, the
palaeotheriums, the anoplotheriums, &c., belong to the
most ancient soils of which we are speaking, to those
which rest on the Calcaire* grossier — in the second place,
the most celebrated of the unknown species, which are
connected with known genera, or to genera very nearly
allied to those which are known, as the elephants, the
rhinoceros, the hippopotamus, the fossil mastodons, are not
found together with the most ancient genera — it is only in
the soils of transport that they are found. In fine, the
bones of species which seem to be the same as ours, are not
met with except in the last deposits of the alluvium.'

We have here established by the testimony of geology
distinct deposits and distinct genera belonging to them,
they are not found previously, and in most instances they
are not found afterwards in the succeeding deposits.

Let us hear the testimony of another celebrated f geolo-
gist. ' Every plant and animal that now lives upon earth
began to be during the great Tertiary period, and had no
place among the plants and animals of the great secondary

^ Calcairo grossier is a formation of the Paris basin, take the chalk
system (secondary) as the base, then we have resting on it the plastic
clay, next in ascending scale the Calcaire grossier, and then the Gypsum
of Montmartre — after which upper marine, &c.

f Hugh Miller, Testimony of the Rocks (195).

THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION, 189

division. We can trace several of our existing quadrupeds,
such as the badger, the hare, the fox, the reindeer, and the
wild cat up to the earlier times of the Pleistocene, and not a
few of our existing shells, such as the great pecten, the edible
oyster, &c., up to the greatly earlier times of the coralline
crag. But at certain definite lines in the deposits of the
past, representative of certain points in the course of time,
the existing mammals and molluscs cease to appear, and
we find their places occupied by other mammals and mol-
luscs ; even such of our British shells as seem to have
enjoyed as species the longest term of Ufe cannot be traced

beyond the times of the Pleiocene deposits We

thus know that in certain periods, nearer or more remote,
all our existing mollusca began to exists and that they had
no existence during the previous periods, which were,
however^ richer in animals of the same great moUuscan
group than the present time — a great number of still
older shells have been detected in a single deposit of the
Paris Basin, the Calcaire grossier, and a good many more
in a more ancient formation still, the London clay. On
entering the chalk, we find a yet older group of shells,
wholly unlike any of the preceding ones, and in the Oolite
and Lias yet other and different groups,' &c.

Thus testimonies to the same effect might be multiplied
from almost every respectable book on geology. All writers
agree on the subject that certain genera or species have
made their appearance for the first time in certain deposits ;
and as this is fatal to the Theory, we need not be surprised
to hear Mr Darwin stoutly declaring that this evidence is
false; this is his own word, 'why do whole groups of
allied species appear, though certainly they often falsely
appear, to come in suddenly on the several geological

190 THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION.

stages? (497). So their sudden appearance is acknow-
ledged, only we are to understand that they had also ex-
isted in antecedent formations, though they cannot be
found. Before, however, we hear the expltmation oflfered
to us of these sudden appearances, we must yet more
closely press the evidence before us.

We clearly understand then that the last 'great formation
of the Tertiary, with its classification of ages in chrono-
logical succession, introduces us to the fauna and flora
that now exist ; for though there is a manifest diflFerence, if
we compare the organic beings of the lower divisions with
those of the Pleistocene, and of the present era, called
sometimes the post-Tertiary, yet there is still a similitude
and a connection, and everything seems in this formation,
taken as a whole, to be preparing for the present state of
things, and the introduction of the actual inhabitants of
the earth. ' When we reflect,' says Lyell, ' on the tranquil
state of the earth, implied by some of the lacustine and
marine deposits of this age, and consider the fulness of all
the different classes of the animal kingdom, as deduced
from the study of the fossil remains, we are naturally led
to conclude, that the earth at that period was in a per-
fectly settled state, and already fitted for the habitation of
man' (iv. 129).

The Tertiary formation is separated from the preceding
chalk formation with such marked difference, the character
of the two eras is so wide apart, the biological chasm is so
vast between them, that palaeontologists speak of them as
if they were distinct worlds. The Tertiary is,' as it were,
severed and walled off from the next formation beneath it,
and by this strong separation the argument too is hemmed
in and confined to a comparatively small compass.

THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION, 191

M. Deshayes firet pointed out that which Lyell fully
confirms: that 'no species of fossil shell has yet been
found common to the Secondary and Tertiary formations.
This marked discordance in the organic remains of the two
series is not confined to the testacea, but extends, as far
as careful comparison has yet been instituted, to all other
departments of the animal kingdom, and to the plants. I
am informed by M. Agassiz that after examining about
500 species of that class, in formations of all ages, he could
discover no one common to the Secondary and Tertiary
rocks — nay, all the Secondary species hitherto known to
him, belong to the genera distinct from those established
for the classification of the Tertiary and recent fishes.
There appears to be a greater chasm between the remains
of the Eocene and Maestrecht beds (Secondary) than be-
tween the Eocene and recent strata; for there are some
living shells in the Eocene formations, whilst there are no
Eocene fossils in the newest Secondary group' (iv. 217).

Similar are the statements of Professor Ansted.

* At the close of the Secondary period (that is, the com-
mencement of the Tertiary) all these older forms appear to
have been completely destroyed, the newer forms becoming
much more abundant and widely distributed, and not one
species remaining identical with anything that exists in the
Secondary rocks ' (ii. 71).

By all this then we see that the Eocene formation of
the Tertiary begins the grand drama of the existing state
of things. The curtain of creation rises, and Nature is
seen earnestly occupied in her grand laboratory, intro-
ducing in well-considered pauses the animated scale which
is to terminate in man. We find in the Eocene, car-
nivorous land-animals unknown before, and by their pre-

192 THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION.

sence alone assuring us of the existence of other animals
destined to be their prey. In the Meiocene * there has
been discovered a peculiarly destructive feline quadruped,,
with the upper canines much elongated, trenchant, sharp-
pointed — sabre-edged, virhence the name Machirodus has
been proposed for this feline sub-genus. It was repre-
sented by species as large as a lion, and by others of the
size of a leopard. Then later on there was a large
Pleistocene lion, found in England and Belgium ; and the
gigantic bear, wolves, foxes, wolverines, marten cats, hy-
aenas, &c. The herbivorous class prospered, the redundancy
of their increase required repression, and hence this large
provision of their enemies.

Then we come to the celebrated animals of the Paris
Basin, the palaeotherium, amplotherium, dinotherium, &c.,
and the fossils of the Tertiary of Northern India, a pro-
digious display of a by-gone age : new and singular
forms of the Carnivora, Felidae, and Canidae; colossal
bears, and genus allied to the otter, but large as panthers ;
two species of mastodons, two new species of elephants,
new species of rhinoceros,! hippopotamus, new species of

• Owen, p. 418.

t * Of the fossil species, that which was the earliest known, and which
is the most frequently met with in the middle and northern parts of
Europe, as well as in Asia, is distinguished from the living species by a
very remarkable circumstance. What particularly attracts our attention
in the rhinoceros is the situation of the bulky horn which it carries ; and
when we examine its skeleton to examine what base has been furnished by
nature, to sustain so weighty an organ, we perceive with surprise that it
is placed upon the extremity of the bones of the nose, which form a very
thick arch it is true, but witliout any support from the rest of the skull. The
species which seems to have been the most common in the ancient world,
would appear to have been, in this respect, much more advantageously or-
ganized than the existing siyecies. It was, in fact, provided with a kind of
bony partition in the nostrils, which, serving as a prop to the arch that sup-
ported the horn, gave greater solidity to it. Add to this favourable circum-
stance that the arch fonned by the bones of the nose is, in the fossil species,

THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION, 193

the horse, of the camelopard, and then, in all countries,
the Elephas primigenius, in prodigious herds : Nature in
that era rejoicing in her gigantic productions, and in
creatures of colossal frame.

Such at a glance was the scene of those days ; the giant
quadrupeds have for the most part disappeared, but the
branches of their families, in smaller or altered form, are
recognized amongst living creatures. But now the ques-
tion comes, whence spring those huge pachyderniata ? we
find the great creatures in the Tertiary, ' there were giants
in those days,' but we do not find any trace of them in the
antecedent formations. We have already seen that there
is a broad gulf between the Tertiary and Secondary, that
life was altogether different, if we compare the two eras ;
but here in the Tertiary a prodigious aggregate of un-
usually large animals crowds upon us, they march into the
scene in solemn grandeur from some unknown birth-place,
and who shall tell us of their birth and the secret of their
first appearance?

What is Natural Selection to do here? She has not
time enough to produce a tooth of one of these creatures,
and as for a proboscis she would require some myriads of

less elevated, and more depressed towards the lower jaw. The immeDse
majority of fossil bones belong to this species, which, until within these
few years, was the only one known/ — Bertrand's Revolution of the Globe,
page 155.

In thb statement we see that the ancient rhinoceros was much more
advantageously organized than the existing species ; that a * favourable
clrcamstance * appeared in its organization, the very phrases used by Mr
Darwin, pastim. Now, according to his Theory, Natural Selection ought
to have made these advantageous and favourable organizations a means
of advancing the favoured species above all its competitors. All other
unimproved creatures of its kindred ought to have been ' infallibly ex-
terminated ;' but it so turns out that the rhinoceros with the advantageous
organization has perished, and the rhinoceros with the inferior organ iza*
tioQ is triumphant.

194 THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION.

ages beyond the Tertiary. Where are the progenitors of
the Mastodon, of the Palaeotherium, of the Sevatherium?
where is the head of the elephant's family? the first
sketch of the elephantoid genus, where? Now we can
find in the Secondary rocks, in the chalk, numbers of
shells, some of them exceedingly minute and of most
delicate texture, yet with all their parts complete ! but an
elephant or a mammoth is larger than a shell, and if their
progenitor existed, with infinite number of intermediate
forms, there must be enormous remnants of their fossil ap-
pearances somewhere ; certainly some of them ought to be
in the Secondary formation, if the Theory is of any value,
but not a fragment is to be found.

It is in this comer of creation, moreover, that all those
animals are seen for the first time which Mr Darwin is so
fond of connecting together by family descent, the tapir,
the horse, elephant, giraffe, pig, &c. * The same numl)er
of vertebrae forming the neck of the giraffe and the ele-
phant, at once explains itself on the theory of descent
with slow and successive modifications' (513). Well,
we have the elephant and we have a species of the
camelopardus in the Tertiary, and w^e have the horse and
pig, and very true it is that they all have seven vertebra
in their necks (as also man has, and the dogs and cats as
well as the rats and mice) ; but where are the scattered
members of this strange family to be found, the interme-
diate animals, in 'ten thousand generations,' connecting
them in successive links ?

And here too in this page of the earth's history we are
too far off to appeal to the pre-Silurian world, for between
the Tertiary and the Silurian are all the other formations
of the earth's crust ; so that in the search for all these lost

THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION. 195

links Mr Darwin has to run the gauntlet of all the rocks
from the Cretacean down to the Cambrian, thence to the
basal rocks of the Silurian, and thence to ' Chaos and old
Night/

So then in all this immense series, in all these ' millions
of ages ' required for forming the rocks, between the
Tertiary and the Silurian, there is not a particle of evi-
dence to be adduced for the help of Natural Selection.
Why then appeal to a pre-Silurian imaginary formation ?
here is space enough to find what is wanted, how comes
it that nothing which is wanted can be found?

Mr Darwin has told us that 'species very rarely en-
dured for more than a geological period' (171), an ad-
mission which, though true, is startling from this quarter,
as it is a clear acknowledgment of the negative evidence
in palaeontology, which Mr Darwin has declared to be
worthless. It is obvious that this his rule can only stand
on negative evidence; a species that has existed in one
formation, is not found in the next. Therefore, argues
Mr Darwin, it has ceased to exist, con\nnced of the fact
simply because he cannot find the species. In this case
the negative evidence in palaeontology satisfies Mr Darwin,
as it does us also.

But now we ask why, if the negative evidence is ad-
mitted as a proof in one instance, is it rejected in another ?
We say that the elephant, &c., did not exist, or that its an-
tecedent link did not exist, in the Secondary, because there
is no trace of them to be found in that formation ; and this
we urge against the existence of an animal which has only
a theoretical standing, and whose real existence is the
thing to be proved. Negative evidence against a creature
that cannot be produced, is inevitable.

196 THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION.

Produce us your cretacean mastodon, or your giraffe, in
the Old Red Sandstone, and we will believe that they then
existed, but this you cannot do, and therefore we do not
believe your theory.

In the mean time it will be observed that negative
evidence is admitted in the theory when wanted, and re-
pudiated when it is found to be inconvenient.

The conclusion then is this : —

All the great creatures, of which we have been speak-
ing, first make their appearance in the first Tertiary form-
ation.

They do not appear in the antecedent or Secondary
formation, nor in any other geological epoch, though the
other strata contain abundant fossils of the organic beings
which existed during their formation, and which are con-
sidered peculiar to them.

The animals that existed in the Secondary formation are
not found in the Tertiary, from whence it is concluded
that they did not exist in the Tertiary.

The animals that existed in the Tertiary formation are
not found in the Secondary,* from \vhence it is also con-
cluded that they did not exist in the Secondary.

* Sir C. Lyell observes : * It seems impossible to account for our Dot
liaving yet found any bones of fish in the Silurian rocks, except l»y fujy-
jHmng tJuit they were not yet in being, or that tliey occupied only a limited
urea.' — Principles of Geology, 10th edition, p. 145, 1866.

Here the negative evidence is admitted as full proof of an important
fact in palaeontology — we apply this principle in arguing on the Tertiarj'
formation. Nevertheless, in his Antiquity of Man, Sir C. Lyell protests
against the negative evidence, just as Mr Dan^'in does ; and thus does he
n)ake the Silurian rocks echo to his master's voice. * It would be a waste
of time to speculate on the number of original monads or germs from
which all plants and animals were subsequently evolved ; moreover as
the oldest fossiliferous strata known to us (the Silurian), may he the last
of a long series of antecedent formations, which once contained organic
benigs' (p. 470).

THE GEOLOGICAL QUESTION, 197

The Tertiary formation then is the era of the first ap-
pearance of the animals in question ; they began to exist
in that epoch, and not sooner.

This is sufficient ; all the rest must follow as an inevit-
able corollary.

The evidence of geology entirely confutes Mr Darwin's
Theory of the Transmutation of Species.

CHAPTER XII.

lyell's confutation of transmutation.

The reader will already have perceived that Sir Charles
Lyell entered the lists as an opponent of Transmutation
many years ago. This appears in all the earlier editions of
the Principles of Geology ; ours is the third, of the year
1834. It is from this edition that extracts will be given
of his confutation of Lamarck, and it will soon be per-
ceived that every point in that confutation is direct against
Mr Darwin, and we may add against Sir C. Lyell himself
also. Subsequent to the publication of Mr Darwin's
Origin of Species, Sir C. Lyell went over to the opinions
which he had so ably confuted ; and in his publication on
The Antiquity of Man ' has advocated the dogma of
Transmutation, even in its most extravagant form. That
volume was published in the year 1861.

In the third edition of the Principles of Geology, the
learned author has no scruple in expressing himself as a
believer in a Creator, he speaks of the Divine Author of all
things, and considers the phenomena of Nature as his work.
Thirty years ago this was not unusual in the language of
scientific writers, but now the fashion is changed, and iu
the School of Transmutation it would be inappropriate and
misplaced. Mr Darwin has candidly told us that ' Natural

LYELLS CONFUTATION OF TRANtiMUTATION 199

Selection, if it be a true principle, will banish the belief of
the continued creation of new organic beings, or of any
great and sudden modification of their structure' (101).
Transmutation is in fact the antitheos of their system ;
they that beUeve in Natural Selection, logically cease to
believe in a Creator.

In the third edition, already referred to, Sir C. Lyell
says : * We must suppose that when the author of Nature
creates* an animal or plant, all the possible circumstances
in which its descendants are destined to live are foreseen,
and that an organization is conferred upon it which will
enable the species to perpetuate itself, and survive under
all the varying circumstances to which it must be inevit-
ably exposed' (ii. 351). Sentiments such as these were
in harmony with the opinions which the learned writer
entertained at that time, — we proceed now to lay some of
those opinions before the reader.

Lamarck's statements are first given : * Every consider-
able alteration in the local circumstances in which each
race of animals exists, causes a change in their wants, and
these new wants excite them to new actions and habits.
These actions require the more frequent employment of
some parts before but slightly exercised, and then greater
development follows as a consequence of their more fre-
quent use. Other organs no longer in use are impoverished
and diminished in size, nay, are sometimes annihilated,
while in their place new parts are insensiblj^ produced for
the discharge of new functions.' This is Lamarck's doc-
trine, and on this Lyell thus comments : * I must observe

* Id other passages similar language is used, as for instance: *From
the above consideratiouSf it appears that npecies liave a real existence in
iiaturCf and that each was endowed, at the time of its creation^ with the
attributes and organization by which it is now distinguished ' (ii. 403).

200 LYELrS CONFUTATION

that no positive fact is cited to exemplify the substitu-
tion of some entirely new sense, faculty, or organ, in the
room of some other suppressed as useless. All the in-
stances adduced go only to prove that the dimensions and
strength of members, and the perfection of certain at-
tributes, may, in a long succession of generations, be less-
ened and enfeebled by disuse, or on the contrary be
matured and augmented by active exertion ; just as we
know tliat the power of the scent is feeble in the grey-
hound, while its swiftness of pace and its acutcness of
siglit are remarkable ; that the harrier and staghound, on
the contrary, are comparatively slow in their movements,
but excel in the sense of smelling. ... It is evident that, if
some well-authenticated facts could have been adduced to
establish one complete step in the process of transforma-
tion, such as the appearance, in individuals descending
from a common stock, of a sense or organ entirely new,
and a complete disappearance of some other enjoyed by
their progenitors, time alone might then be supposed suf-
ficient to bring about any amount of metamorphosis.

* The gratuitous assumption, therefore, of a point so vital
in the Theory of Transmutation, was unpardonable on the
2)art of its advocate' (ii. 332).

Lamarck's picture of the supposed change of animals
on the principle of appetence is then introduced : * The
camelopard was not at first gifted with a long and flexible
neck, but when reduced by want, made great efforts to
reach the leaves of the tree, and so by degrees its neck be-
came lengthened,' &c. On this his critic remarks : * But
if the soundness of all these arguments and inferences be
admitted, we are next to inquire, what were the original
types of form, organization, and instinct, from which the

OF TRANSMUTATION. 201

diversities of character, as now exhibited by animals and
plants, have been derived? We know that individuals
which are mere varieties of the same species would, if their
pedigree could be traced back far enough, terminate in a
single stock ; so, according to the train of reasoning be-
fore described, the species of a genus, and even the genera
of the great family, must have had a common point of de-
parture. What, then, was the single stem from which so
many varieties of form have ramified ? were there many of
these, or are we to refer the origin of the whole animate
creation, as the Egyptian priests did that of the universe,
to a single egg' (335).

Here the learned writer, in a style most unusual to him,
indulges in a little irony against the disciples of Trans-
mutation, and, by anticipation, hits Mr Darwin very hard,
who, as we have seen, deduces all animal life from one
primordial form — ^the spore of one of the lowest algae. It
is instructive to note these prophetic thrusts.

We are then reminded that in the Theory of the ancient
philosophers it had been assumed, that created things were
always more perfect when they came from' the hands of
their maker, and that there was a tendency to progressive
deterioration in all sublunary things, ' but when the pos-
sibility of the indefinite modification of individuals de-
scending from common parents was once assumed, as also
the geological inference respecting the progressive develop-
ment of organic life, it was natural that the ancient dogma
should be rejected, or rather reversed ; and that the most
simple and imperfect forms and faculties should be con-
ceived to have been the originals whence all others were
developed. Accordingly, in conformity to these views,
inert matter was supposed to have been first endowed

202 LYELrS CONFUTATION

with life; until, in the course of ages, sensation was
superadded to mere vitality ; sight, hearing, and the other
senses were afterwards acquired; then instinct and the
mental faculties ; until, finally, by virtue of the tendency of
things to progressive improvement, the irrational was de-
veloped into the rational.

'The reader, however, will immediately perceive, that
when all the higher orders of plants and animals were thus
supposed to be comparatively modern, and to have been
derived in a long series of generations from those of more
modern conformation, some further hypothesis became
indispensable, in order to explain why, after an indefinite
lapse of ages, there were still so many beings of the sim-
plest structure. Why have the majority of existing crea-
tures remained stationary through this long succession of
epochs, while others have made such prodigious advances?
why arc there such multitudes of infusoria and polyps, or
of conferva) and other cryptogamic plants ? Why, more-
over, has the process of development acted with such
unequal and irregular force on those classes of beings
V\hich have been greatly perfected, so that there are wide
chasms in the scries ; gaps so enormous, that Lamarr^k
fairly admits we can never expect to fill them up by
further discoveries.^' (337).

The Trausmutationists avail themselves of the strikin^^
dificrcnce of character in the races of dogs to show the
way in which a new species may begin. Mr Darwin has
said much on this subject. Sir C. Lyell remarks on it :
' But if we look for some of those essential changes which
would be required to lend even the semhlunce of a founda-
tion for the theory of Lamarck^ respecting the growth of
new organs and the gradual obliteration of others, we find

OF TRANSMUTATION. 203

nothing of the kind : for in these varieties of the dog, says
Cuvier, the relation of the bones with each other remain
essentially the same ; the form of the teeth never changes
in any perceptible degree, except that in some individuals
one additional false grinder occasionally appears, some-
times on one side, and sometimes on the other ' (356).

'Lamarck has thrown out a conjecture that the wolf
may be the original of the dog, but he has adduced no
data to bear out such an hypothesis. Dogs have become
wild in Cuba, Hayti, and in all the Caribbean islands. In
the course of the seventeenth century, they hunted in
packs from twelve to fifty or more in number, and fear-
lessly attacked herds of wild boars and other animals. It
is natural, therefore, to inquire to what form they reverted ?
Now they are said by many travellers to have resembled
very nearly the shepherd's dog, but it is certain they were
never turned into wolves ' (357).

We have seen that the marvels of instinct are no barrier
to Mr Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, as little as
they were to Lamarck's system. These physiologists agree
that all species have proceeded from varieties, forming
themselves into species, and on the same principle prepar-
ing again for the formation of other species. * We might
ask,' says the critic of Lamarck, * if a few generic types
alone have been created among insects, and the intermedi-
ate species have proceeded from hybridity, where arc
those original types, combining, as they ought to do, the
elements of all the instincts which have made their appear-
ance in the numerous derivative races ? So, also, in regard
to animals of all classes, and of plants, if species in geneml
are of hybrid origin, where are the stocks which combine
in themselves * the habits, properties, and organs, of which

204 LYELLS CONFUTATION

all the intcnxning species ought to afford us mere modifi-
cations* (395).

We now come to a subject requiring some attention, as
it is one in which Sir Charles Lyell has exhibited pre-emi-
nently the versatility of his opinions. In his strictures on
Lamarck, he enters on the subject of embryology : * There
is yet/ says he, ' another department of anatomical discovery
to which I must allude, because it has appeared to some per-
sons to afford a distant analogy, at least, to that progress-
ive development by which some of the inferior species
may have been gradually perfected into those of more com-
plex organization.

' Tiedemann found — and his discoveries have been most
fully confirmed by M. Serres — that the brain of the foetus,
in the highest class of vertebrated animals, assumes, in
succession, forms analogous to those which belong to Jishes,
reptiles, and birds, before it acquires the additions and mo-
difications which are peculiar to the mammiferous tribe.
So that, in the passage from the embryo to the perfect
mammifer, there is a typical representation, as it were, of all
those transformations which the primitive species are sup-
posed to have undergone, during a long series of generations,
between the present period and the remotest geological era.'
After some further discussion of this thcorv, the ingenious
critic concludes : * It will be observed, that these curious
phenomena disclose, in a highly interesting manner, the
unity of plan that nms tlirough the organization of the
whole series of vertebrated animals ; but the// lend no sup-
port tvhatever to the notion of a gradual transmutation of
one species to another ; least of all of the pa?snge, in the
course of many generations, from an animal of a more sim-
ple to one of a more complex structure ' (402).

OF TRANSMUTATION. 205

This theory thus confuted by Sir Charles Lyell is warmly
adopted by Darwin : he considers it a most important
auxiliary to his general argument. * In two groups of
animals/ he says, * however much they may at present dif-
fer from each other in structure and habits, if they pass
through the same or similar embryonic stages, we may feel
assured that they have both descended from the same or
similar parents, and are therefore in that degree nearly re-
lated. Thu^ community in embryonic structure reveals
community of descent, however much the structure of the
adult may have been modified ' (Origin of Species).

Here then we see Darwin, in express terms, contradicted
by Lyell — * this theory,' he says, ' lends no support whatever
to the notion of gradual transmutation from one species to
another ' — but in his volume, of which the title is ' The
Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man/ he has
turned round to the opposite point of the compass, and
ai^ues strongly for that w hich^ he had vehemently repu-
diated. In this last publication he says, ' if there had
been a system of progressive development, the successive
changes through which the embryo of the species of a high
class, a mammifer, for example, now passes may be expected
to present us with a picture of the stages through which,
in the course of ages, that class of animals has successively
passed in advancing from a lower to a higher grade.

' Hence the embryonic states exhibited one after the
other by the human individual, bear a certain amount of
resemblance to those of the fish, reptile, and bird before
assuming those of the highest division of the vertebrata '
(Antiquity of Man, 416).

The result then is this, that our parentage is first from
a fish, next through a reptile, and last from a bird ! In

20G LTELUS CONFUTATION

this genealogy Sir Charles Lyell and Mr Darwin are now
perfectly agreed. It is proved by the human embryo,
there is ' a certain degree of resemblance ' to the embryo
of the fish, reptile, and bird, and a certain degree of re-
semblance is a clear proof of family identity. We are, as
Mr Dar\vin says, ' nearly related/ It is to be regretted
that these learned physiologists have not been more ac-
curate in describing our near relations, for ' a fish ' is a
wide term — we have all the depths of the ocean to search
for our progenitor — from a shark to a herring, from
a tunny to a mackerel. We may therefore suppose that a
tunny was the progenitor of a crocodile, a crocodile of an
ostrich, an ostrich of an ape, and an ape of a man. By
this branch of the science of Transmutation, we learn at
least one point with some degree of certainty, that a bird
hatched a mammifer — perhaps a gorilla ; the next step of
* improvement ' to the ' human face divine ' would be com-
paratively easy.

But we must return to our author. After descri!)inir
tlie difficulty which attends the formation of an accurate
definition of Species, Sir C. Lyell traces the next step to
the dream of Transmutation, — he is speaking here in his
Principles of Geology, not in his Antiquity of Man:
'These views seem to confirm all his doubts as to the
stability of the specific character, and he begins to think
there may exist an inseparable connection between a series
of changes in the inanimate world, and the capability of
species to be indefinitely modified by the influence of ex-
tinct circumstances. Henceforth his speculations know no
definite bounds, he gives the rein to conjecture, and fancies
that the outward form, internal structure, instinctive
faculties, nay, that reason itself may have been gradually

OF TRANSMUTATION, 207

developed, from some of the simplest states of existence —
that all animals, that man himself, and the irrational be-
ings, may have had one common origin ; that all may be
part3 of one continuous and progressive scheme of develop-
ment, from the most imperfect to the most complex ; in
fine, he renounces his belief in the high genealogy of his
Species, and looks forward, as if in compensation, to the
future perfectibility of man in his physical, intellectual,
and ntbral attributes ' (ii. 347).

This able and eloquent description of the mental hallu-
cination exhibited in a behef of the doctrine of Transmuta-
tion, should not be forgotten. It is traced, and most
justly, to an unrestrained imagination indulging in wild
conjecture. Reasoning from facts is discarded, assump-
tion becomes the basis of argumeiit, and the deficiencies
of proof are compensated by the ingenuities of special
pleading. In the above passage Sir Charles Lyell has not
only, in writing against Lamarok, given a correct analysis
of Mr Darwin's Origin of Species, but has touched a
striking part of that system, the future perfectibility of
man. This we have seen in the preceding pages. We
spring from fishes, birds, and apes, but we shall, in the
course of geological time, advance to a high grade of im-
provement through the instrumentality of Natural Selection.

But we now come to the culminating point in Trans-
mutation, the formation of man out of the quadrumanous
animal. This a few years since appeared to Sir C. Lyell
the climax of absurdity, as he expresses it in his calm and
dignified language.

' Such is the machinery of the Lamarckian system ; but
the reader will hardly, perhaps, be able to form a perfect
conception of so complicated a piece of mechanism, unless it

208 LYELLS CONFUTATION

is exhibited in motion, so that we may see in what manner
it can work out, under the author's guidance, all the ex-
traordinary effects which we behold in the present state of
the animate creation. I have only space for exhibiting a
small part of the entire process by which a complete meta-
morphosis is achieved, and shall therefore omit the mode
whereby, after a countless succession of generations, a
small gelatinous body is transformed into an oak or an ape ;
passing on at once to the last grand step in the proglx^ssivc
scheme, by which the orang-outang, having been already
evolved out of a monad, is made slowly to attain the attri-
butes and dignity of man.

' One of the races of quadrumanous animals which
had reached the highest state of perfection, lost, by con-
straint of circumstances (concerning the exact nature of
which tradition is unfortunately silent), the habit of climb-
ing trees, and of hanging on by grasping the boughs with
their feet as well as their hands. The individuals of this
race being obliged, for a long series of generations, to use
their feet exclusively for walking, and ceasing to employ
their hands as feet, were transformed into bimanous
animals, and what before were thumbs became toes, no
separation being required when their feet were used
solely for walking. Having acquired a habit of holding
themselves upright, their legs and feet assumed, insensibly,
a conformation fitted to support them in an erect attitude,
till at last these animals could no longer go on all fours

without much inconvenience Now, when so much

progress had been made by the quadrumanous animals
before mentioned, that thev could hold themselves habit-
ujilly in an erect attitude, and were accustomed to a wide
range of vision, and ceased to use their jaws for fighting

OF ^TRANSMUTATION. 209

and tearing, or for clipping herbs for food, their snout be-
came gradually shorter, their incisor teeth became vertical,
and the facial angle grew more open. Among other ideas
which the natural tendency to perfection engendered, the
desire of ruling suggested itself, and this race succeeded at
length in getting the better of other animals, and made
themselves masters of all those spots on the surface of the
globe which best suited them. They drove out the animals
which approached nearest to them in organization and in-
telligence, and which were in a condition to dispute with
them the good things of this world, forcing them to take

refuge in deserts, woods, and wildernesses.' ' The

individuals of the ascendant race, animated with a desire
of interchanging their ideas, which became more and more
numerous, were prompted to multiply the means of com-
munication, and were no longer satisfied with mere panto-
mimic signs, nor even with all possible inflexions of the
voice, but made continual efforts to acquire the power of
uttering articulate sounds. The habitual exercise of their
throat, tongue, and lips, insensibly modified the conform-
ation of their organs, until they became fitted for the
facidty of speech. Hence, in this peculiar race, the origin
of the admirable faculty of speech ; hence also the diversity
of languages, since the distance of places where the
individuals composing the race established themselves,
soon favoured the corruption of conventional signs ' (ii.
340-43).

Such is the doctrine of Transmutation in its full-blown
beauty, for we see but the buds, as it were, of the genealogi-
cal tree, till we are favoured at last with the consummate
flower of an ape ripened into a man. The learned critic
of Lamarck has taken pains in the portraiture, and by his

210 LYELVS CONFUTATION

well-sustained gravity and measured sentences has deep-
ened the irony of his description of the metamorphose. A
little further on he gives us his own undisguised senti-
ments.

' The orang-outang, which, for its resemblance in form to
man, and apparently for no other good reason, has been
selected by Lamarck to be the most perfect of the inferior
animals, has been tamed by the savages of Borneo, and
made to climb lofty trees, and to bring down the fruit
But it is said to yield to his masters an unwilling obedi-
ence, and to be held in subjection only by severe discipline.
We know nothing of the faculties of this animal which can
suggest the idea that it rivals the elephant in intelligence,
much less anything which can countenance i/ie dreams of
those who have fancied tliat it might have been transformed
into the dominant race'

We have now to listen to Sir Charles Lyell — quantum
niutatus ab illo Ilectore ! — pleading earnestly, from the op-
posite point of the compass, for this ' dream ' of Lamarck,
and advancing many arguments for the transmutation of
an ape into a man.

Mr Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, as the grand
agent of metamorphose, has found favour with Sir C.
Lycll, rather than the principle of appetency or tentative
action suggested by Lamarck ; though to us, if compelled
to make a selection between these ' dreams,' that of Lamarck
would seem a degree less absurd than the other. Follow-
ing therefore Mr Darwin, Sir C. Lyell considers that this
transformation has taken place by many grades of pro-
gressive improvement, through Natural Selection. He ex-
pressly names the orang-outang as the animal on which this
improvement may have taken place ; and feeling, like Mr

OF TRANSMUTA TION, 211

Darwin, the necessity of some geological evidence to prove
this chain of improvement, he is obliged to abandon all the
existing evidence that the earth's strata can offer, and to
appeal to a future day, ' auspicio melioris aevi,' when the
missing links of this valuable chain of anthropoidal trans-
formations may possibly be discovered. ' At some future
day, when many hundred species of extinct quadrumana
may have been brought to lights the naturalist may speculate
with advantage on this subject; at present we must be
content to wait patiently, and not to allotv our judgments
respecting transmutation to be influenced by the want of
evidence which it would be contrary to analogy to look for
in post-Pleiocene deposits in any district, which, as yet,
we have carefully examined. For as we meet with extinct
kangaroos and wombats in Australia, extinct llamas and
sloths in South America, so in equatorial Africa, and in
certain islands of the East Indian Archipelago, may we hope
to tneet hereafter with types of the anthropoid primates,
allied to the gorilla, chimpanzee, and orang-outang. Europe,
during the Pleiocene period, seems to have enjoyed a climate
fitting it to be the habitation of the quadrumanous mam-
malia ; but we no sooner carry back our researches into the
Miocene times, where the plants, insects, and shells imply
a wanner temperature both of sea and land, than we begin
to discover fossil apes and monkeys north of the Alps and
Pyrenees. But according to the doctrine of progression
it is not in these Miocene strata, but in those of Pleiocene
and post-Pleiocene date, in more equatorial regions, that
there will be the greatest chance of discovering hereafter,
some species more highly organized than the gorilla and
chimpanzee' (Antiquity of Man, 499).

Of course we shall have to wait a good long time for

212 LYELLS CONFUTAIION

these discoveries, before * many hundred species of extinct
quadrumana ' can be brought to light by researches in
equatorial Africa and islands of the East India Archi-
pelago. It is not quite apparent why these discoveries
are restricted to these parts of the world, seeing that the
Tertiary deposits of northern India, rich in the evidence
of ancient animals, have produced species of the quad-
rumana; but certain it is that researches in equatorial
Africa have least chance of being prosecuted, and delay in
this question is a point gained. In the mean while, how-
ever, as Sir C. Lyell has fixed his ' hopes ' most on the
discoveries to be made in the Pleiocene and post-Pleiocene
deposits, it seems to have occurred to him that this will
hardly allow time enough for the series of improved pro-
genitors of the human race to have got rid of their hand-
feet, to walk upright, to abandon the branches of trees,
and to acquire the faculty of speech, with reasoning facul-
ties, a conscience, and an acknowledgment of a moral law.
Mr Darwin, his master, requires immense periods of time
for his transformations, and as the post-Pleiocene brings
things close to our own age, it is obvious that here is too
scanty an allowance of ages to effect the great metamor-
phose according to the doctrine of the school.

Sir C. Lyell, therefore, has a plan of his own to get over
tliis difficulty, it is by ' a rapid stride,' as he explains to us
n the following passage : ' We may almost demur to the
assumption that the hypothesis of variation and Natural
Selection obliges us to assume that there was an ab-
solutely insensible passage from the highest intelligence
of the inferior animals to the improvable reason of man.
The birth of an iridividual of transcendent genius, of pa-
rents who have never displayed any intellectual capacity

OF TRANSMUTATION. 213

above the average standard of their age or race, is a phe-
nomenon not to be lost sight of, when we are conjec-
turing whether the successive steps in advance, by w^hich
a progressive scheme has been developed, may not admit
of OCCASIONAL STRIDES, Constituting breaks in an other-
wise continuous series of psychical changes If,

in conformity with the theory of progression, w^e believe
mankind to have risen slowly from a rude and humble
starting-point, such leaps may have successively introduced
not only higher and higher forms and grades of intellect,
but at a much remoter period may have cleared at one
bound the space which separated the highest stage of the
unprogressive intelUgence of the inferior animals from the
first and lowest form of improvable reason manifested by
man' (id. 504).

In this passage, which exhibits the scholar fully equal to
the master in the art of conjecture, we have Natural
Selection put aside for the nonce — we do not hear of a
minute modification appearing accidentally to the ad-
vantage of the ape, millions of ages carrying on the improve-
ment, and all the stationary apes exterminated — but the
great chasm between the instinct of animals and the reason
of man is cleared by one bound — (and a greater leap never
yet was taken, of that there can be no doubt) — and thus
ingeniously is the difficulty surmounted. Now, as Lamarck
has his principle of appetency, and Mr Darw^in his prin-
ciple of Natural Selection, this new principle of ' occasional
strides' or long leaps, may be designated the Saltatory
Principle, for it may turn out to be of even more import-
ance in the Theory than even Natural Selection, and ouglit
therefore to have a name in the annals of science. When
time and space hem in too closely the disciples of this

214 LYELUS CONFUTATION

school, the Saltatory Principle may liberate them at once ;
and with this convenient auxiliary it will no longer be
needful to search too precisely in equatorial Africa for the
missing myriads of quadrumana, but by four bold leaps,
from the fish to the reptile, from the reptile to the bird,
from the bird to the baboon, and from the baboon to man,
to carry Transmutation triumphantly over all obstacles, —

* And show a Newton as we show an ape.'

Let us, however, reflect a little on this interesting process:
for what can be more interesting to us than this great leap
of the first man ? We will suppose that ' an individual
of transcendent genius ' sprang up by chance amongst the
apes, and that he found himself one day, in fact, a man iu
reasoning faculties and mental endowments — he would
naturally wish to separate himself from his kindred, and to
follow the suggestions of his new nature. How did he
contrive to do this with his animal form, his nether hands,
or prehensile feet, his inability to walk, and his whole
frame constructed for the mode of life to which he had
hitherto been accustomed ? Then where was the female
for him to perpetuate his ' transcendent genius : ' did a
female ape about the same time ' clear in one bold bound *
the immeasurable chasm between the intelligence of the
animal and the reason of man? did she from the beast
leap into the lady ? and was our first parent thus enabled
to transmit to future ages that race to which we belong ?
An ape turned man in mind, consorting with a female ape
uniniprovcd, and nothing but an ape, would not find much
felicity in his connubial life ; and it is more than doubtful
if the progeny of such a union would exhibit the intellect
of the father. It is much to be feared that ' the young bar-
barians when at play,' would skip from the branches with

OF TRANSMUTATION. 215

their mother, would howl and grin in the palm trees, and
exhibit their usual dexterity in hunting after parasitic in-
sects.

But seriously, this is a difficulty either not considered
or purposely omitted by the Transmutationists, that in
their fables of modified animals, it must be requisite to
find male and female contemporaneously and similarly
modified ; and that too in several successive generations,
otherwise it is certain that these casual variations of very
minute difference, would forthwith disappear, and thus the
modification would soon be absorbed in a return to the
normal condition of the species.

The Tmnsmutationists, before they storm the citadel of
Reason, to establish there the rights of their kindred ape,
have a fierce battle at the outworks. Sharp is the con-
troversy about the terms * bimanous ' and ' quadrumanous,'
two-handed and four-handed ; for if it be conceded that
man is specifically a two-handed animal, then it would
follow, that in this respect he is proved to be in an order
apart, by himself — and is not to be classed as one of the
primates of the animal kingdom. Now as it is of essential
interest to the Lamarckians to make out a close family con-
nection between man and the ape, and as they cannot
deny that man has only two hands, they vehemently insist
that the ape has not four hands, but that the hind limb is
terminated by a good and proper foot. Professor Huxley
is quoted by Sir C. Lyell as authority for the tarsal and me-
tatarsal bones, and avers that their number and form resem-
ble those of a man's foot. He adds, however, some damaging
acknowledgments : ' the metatarsals and digits, on the other
hand, are proportionally longer and slenderer, while the
great toe is not only proportionally shorter and weaker,

216 LYELrS CONFUTATION

but its metatarsal bone is united by a far more movable
joint with the tarsus ; at the same time the foot is set
more obliquely upon the leg than in man. The hind
limb of the gorilla, therefore, ends in a true foot with a
very movable great toe. It is a prehensile foot, if you
will, but is in no sense a hand : it is a foot which differs
from that of a man in no fundamental character, but in
mere proportions, degree of mobility, and secondary ar-
rangement of parts/

No slight differences these, whatever special-pleading
may pretend to the contrary. Professor Huxley, indeed,
himself adds, ' it must not be supposed that because 1
speak of these differences as not fundamental, that I wish
to underrate their value. They are important enough in
their ivay, the structui:e of the foot being in strict correla-
tion with that of the rest of the organism of the ape.'

Let us here see what we have got, by the acknowledg-
ment of the school, that the gorilla has a prehemile foot ;
but man has not a prehensile foot ; let the tarsal and meta-
tarsal bones be as they may, man has not a prehensile foot.
Moreover, the foot of the ape is set more obliquely on the
leg than ours, and therefore cannot be used as ours, except
very imperfectly. The ape cannot walk,* according to our

* Cuvier, in liis ' Conformatiou particiilicre de rHomme/ has thus
epokeu of the foot : —

* Lo pied dc rhomme est tres different de celui des Binges : 11 est large ;
la jambe porte verticalement sur lui ; le talon est renflc en dessous ; fie«
doigts son courts, et ne peuvent presque se ployer ; le pouce, plus long, plus
gros que les autres, est place sur la lueme ligne, et ne leur est point op-
posable ; ce pied est done propro a supporter le corps, raais il ne peut ser-
vir, ni a saisir, ni ^ grimper, et comme de leur cote les mains ne servent
point a la marche, rhomme est le seul animal vraiment bimane et hipedf.

It is not easy to answer this argument, or deny this deduction, if the
use to which tlie member is put is to determine the real meaning of the
hand and foot.

* The foot of man is distinguished from that of the apes by its power of

OF TRANSMUTATION. 217

ideas of walking — he has need of support, owing to the
inclined position of his body, when in a standing position,
and it would be impossible for him to walk upright, more
humanOy for a hundred yards.

Well then, if a foot is for walking, our progenitors can
only by courtesy be said to have a foot : it is ' a prehensile
foot ' — a foot for seizing and carrying objects, for which
purpose it is our custom to use our hands. If in the place
of our present feet we had the apparatus that terminates
the lower limbs of the gorilla, what should we do with it ?
should we with it run in the Olympian games, or should we
lay hold of the branches of the first tree, and swing ourselves
aloft on the high places of the forest ?

The gorilla has been made for the woods and forests ;
we have been made that we might run and walk. Away,
then, with all this special pleading and finesse of a per-
verted physiology. Look at the facts of Nature, and let
them settle the question.

Or if that should be preferred, let us set a foot of a
gorilla before us for inspection, and with that the foot of
the Apollo Belvidere : look at them, compare them— are
they similar instruments ? were they designed for similar
objects ? are they intended for similar purposes ?

But the Transmutationists will remind us that there is

being planted flat upon the ground, and thus of afibrding a firm basis of
support. Even the chimpanzee and the orang, when they attempt to walk
erect, rest upon the side of the foot ; and the absence of a projecting
heel causes them to be very deficient in the power of keeping the leg up-
right upon it. For it is to this projection, that the strong muscles of the
calf of the leg are fixed, by which the heel is drawn upwards, or the leg
drawn back upon it.' — Carpenter.

This is a sorry description of a foot, but in tnith the foot of the ape is as
little intended for walking as our feet are for seizing objects. By long
practice persons have been known to make a prehensile instrument of the
foot, but no long practice w^ould enable an ape to walk with his foot — it
could never be beyond a hobble.

218 LYELVS CONFUTATION

no design in Nature, and that nothing has been created
for a particular object, but that a series of events has pro-
duced what we see. Well, then, is the foot of man the
same instrument as the foot of the ape, and does it, as a
fact, perform similar functions ?

It seems, however, that in this discussion the learned
physiologists incline to the opinion that the gorilla is more
nearly related to us in family-ties than the orang-outang,
' for the carpus of the orang-outang, like those of most apes,
contains nine bones, while in the gorilla, as in man, they

are only eight/ We are, then, one bone nearer the gorilla
than we are to the orang-outang. He is bone of our bone.
It is to be feared that it was the gorilla which took the
long leap, and became the first gentleman.

Then we and the apes have the same number of teeth,
though the canines of the apes have an awkward habit of
projecting, like tusks in the upper and lower jaw, two
inches and a half long. Those that wish to study the teeth
of their great ancestor, may see the whole matter well ex-
plained, and with admirable illustrations, in Todd's Cyclo-
paedia of Anatomy and Physiology (iv. 918). In that page
and the next, are well executed wood-cuts of the jaws of
the gorilla, natural size ; and so formidable do they look,
that a person unacquainted with odontology might well
suppose that they belonged to a bear, or some other dread-
ful beast of destruction. If the first lady-gorilla, the great
grandmother of our race, had such a set of teeth as those,
we, her descendants, may well say to her, ' Oh, grand-
mamma, what great teeth you have got!'

When we come to the brain, the supposed scat of intel-
lect, the School of Transmutation musters all its powers to
bring in their Theory triumphant ; and we arc assured that

OF TRANSMUTATION. 219

the apes have the three characters of the brain peculiar to
man, the occipital or posterior lobe, the hippocampus minor,
and the posterior cornu. We are also told that the pos-
terior lobe of the cerebrum of the chimpanzee is prolonged
backwards, so as more than to cover the cerebellum. In
short, it is declared as ]an established fact, that the brain
of the ape has the hippocampus minor. Be it so. In the
mean while, it is conceded that the human cranium has not
yet been observed with a less capacity than 63 cubic
inches, whilst the most capacious gorilla skull has not more
than 34 cubic inches. The largest ^human skull contains
114 cubic inches, the smallest, 63 ; the largest adult gorilla,
34, the smallest adult, 24.

Comparative volume of brain, if the brain be worth any-
thing, must be of some value, and whatever that worth
may be, man has twice as much of it as the gorilla. But
besides the comparative volume, there is probably very
much depending on the peculiar convolutions of the brain,
in which mysterious labyrinth perhaps the inscrutable secret
of intellect may be hid. Sir C. Lyell, who here argues
with more than usual warmth for the Transmutationists,
gives us what he calls a correct side-view of the chimpanzee '
brain, and a correct side-view of the human brain (Anti-
quity of Man, 482). They are, however, but indifferent
woodcuts, and deficient in that clearness and neatness
which the subject requires ; such as they are, the reader
may consult them, and it will at once be perceived how
wide is the difference between the convolutions; so difierent,
indeed, are they, that if mental power depends in any way
on the form of the brain, the mental faculties depending on
such diflferent convolutions must indeed be wide apart.

But it never seems to strike the advocates of Transmut-

220 L YELL'S CONFUTATION

ation, tliat the more they can make the ape to approximate
to man by anatomical comparison, the more striking and
wonderful is the real diflFerence between them. The cha-
racter of man, his habits, temper, disposition, incIinatioD,
and intellect, are much further apart from the ape than
from any other animals. It is in the intellect and affec-
tions that we see the real meaning of man ; his bones
and his brain may resemble those of the ape, but to what
sort of a creature, viewed generally in his disposition, do
those bones and brains belong ? Talk as you will of im-
proved apes, and of the unquestionable existence of the
hippocampus minor in their cerebral apparatus, yet where
was there ever an ape since the world began that could
construct a bow and arrow, or light a fire, and cook its
food ? Acts such as these are certainly no proof of a
highly cultivated intellect, as they are the elementary con-
trivances of the lowest savages ; but such as they are, no
ape ever attempted them, nor ever imitated them, though
they are disposed to a sort of mimickry when they have an
opportunity of observing the actions of man. The more
you praise and magnify the structure of the ape, the more
abject and vile docs the animal appear. It is because he
is so near us, in a sort of odious caricature, that the differ-
ence is so astonishing. The character of the ape is very
far less human than that of the dog or the tame elephant.
There can be no communion between man and the ape, no
hope of friendship — the ape never can be made useful to
man, or be trusted by him. The gorilla, whose bones, it
is said, most closely resemble ours, and therefore by Trans-
nuitation is most closely allied to us, is a ferocious demon
of the wilderness, as fierce and dangerous as the worst
carnivorous animals ; the mandril, though not so near, is

OF TRANSMUTATION, 221

still of the same family, and therefore our kinsman — but of
all beasts he is the most foul, violent, and repulsive. If
we turn from these loathsome creatures to the dog, the ele-
phant, the horse, what virtues, what intelligence, what
nobility of character do we find ! There is friendship be-
tween us and them, there is mutual love — and if the moral
character determines the worth of the animal, how vastly
do they excel those darlings of the Transmutationists that
howl in the African forests, and have their cerebrum pro-
longed backwards so as more than to cover their cerebellum.

Nay, we may venture still further, and aver, if similitude
of character and action may be a just claim to bring an
animal in near relationship to man, that even amongst the
insects, the ever-celebrated honey-bee is of nearer kindred
to us by far than the ape. The honey-bee has its polity,
its government, its laws, its order, its civic architecture, its
public zeal, its interest of community, and its loyalty — and
in all these things it closely resembles us — m^ns cujusque
IS EST QUiSQUE. By tlus famous rule the bee is one with
us ; and by this rule the ape is as far from man as the
east is from the west, which is an infinite distance.

But as it is to the outward form that the Transmuta-
tionists refer as an evidence of their system, we willingly
meet them there, and put aside for a moment weightier
considerations. As they appeal to the bones, to the bones
we will go, and we will place side by side the human
skeleton and that of the apo. The skeleton of man,
usually a distressing object, owing to its gloomy associa-
tions, then becomes, by comparison, an object of admira-
tion, so that the bones of even a negro are comely com-
pared with those of the chimpanzee or gorilla. The mere
carpentry and frame-work of the human form exhibit a

222 LYELVS CONFUTATION

majestic dignity of design and a symmetry of construction
that might prepare lis to expect, in the finished edifice, a
being of superior grade. But look at the Simian skeleton,
examine its proportions and general contour, and then say
if it is not equally well adapted for a structure of uncouth
and disgusting appearance. Then from the outward sketch
of the two, turn to the full development of the living form,
and place an adult gorilla or chimpanzee in juxta-posi-
tion with a man of comely figure — not merely a handsome
European, but, if you choose, a Cafi^re of South Africa — and
then make your comparison, and draw your conclusion.
The human form, when of finished mould, myriads of
which could any day be produced, is an object of tran-
scendent beauty, far surpassing the comeliness of all other
animals ; and as being the last production of the Great
Artist, it manifests the perfection of his skill in the highest
degree.*

Now turn to our fabled progenitor, the ape; and
where is there an animal more appalling to look at than
the gorilla, more loathsome and detestable in ugliness ?
Strength, malignity, and beastliness are the expression of
his person ; and amongst his other hideous peculiarities,
perhaps the most so are his legs, terminating in a giimmy

* *It is one of tlie master-results of creation, and one of the peculiar
marks of creative genius, tliat perfection ani beauty are presented to-
gether. As truth is the soul of eloquence, so is perfection the soul of
beauty. The works of nature are beautiful because there is so much ex-
cellence in them, such admirable adaptation to their purpose ; and we
find the works of man beautiful only so far as they are correct imitations
of their great originals in nature, or show some approach to Nature's ex-
cellence. And man is the most beautiful object in Nature because he is
the most perfect, that is, because the purpose of his existence is the highest,
and because his physique exhibits the most marv^ellous mouldings to adapt
it to its high purpose; because, in short, in him the material is wrought
to such a pitch of refinement as to be the receptacle and minister of the
•' immaterial."* — Dr Humphrey on the Human Yoot and Hand (41).

OF TRANSMUTATION. 223

ankle, thick with unusual sinews, to enable his prehensile
foot {hand'ii is not to be called) to strangle the animal or the
man with whom he contends. The chimpanzee, a much
gentler creature, is unsightly, ungainly, and of most base
aspect, concentrating in its form all that we think ungrace-
ful ; and added to this, a ridiculous and grotesque appear-
ance makes the poor animal look as despicable as it is un-
lovely.

How comes it then that with such similarity of anatomy
there should be such dissimilarity of appearance, as well as
of character ? how comes it that perfection of form should,
in certain respects, be so near to hideousness of appearance ;
and that the perfection of beauty should be genealogically
allied to the perfection of ugliness ?

This surely seems to suggest to us the finishing touch
of the master's hand, as if he had produced these uncouth
creatures as a puzzhng preface to what he next would
do ; as if the attempt at producing grace and elegance so
triumphant in the formation of a multitude of animals
had now at last signally failed, and the art were lost, in
order that by the next form creation might be amazed,
and as it were dazzled, on beholding such a blaze of
beauty shining out of such a sketch of antecedent de-
formity.

But then we are reminded by the school, that if man has
a voice and can talk, he is not to boast, for so have ani-
mals, birds, and beasts their tones, which they make in-
telligible to one another ; and that our speech, therefore,
has its rudimental form in the tones of animals.

Be it so ; but genealogically we spring from apes, and
not from nightingales, and therefore we must listen to the
voice of our progenitors, the most ancient primates of our race,

224 LYELLS CONFUTATION •

to trace the origin of our voice. Let us then go to the
Equatorial forests of Africa and hearken to our progeni-
tors — ' the linked sweetness long drawn out' of the yelling
and roaring gorilla, the howls and the screams and the
grunts of all the rest of the noble family — and then we
shall be convinced that the musical modulations and har-
monious varieties of the human voice are justly to be traced
to our forefathers of the woods.

But at last, man, such as he is, came forth, having got
rid of the last resemblance of the last improved ape, and
standing on the scene, a perfect man. We will not in-
quire into the history of the transitions; it may have been,
according to Mr Darwin, through thousands of interme-
diate and improving species, or it may have been by the
Saltatory principle proposed by Sir C. Lyell, by which an
individual of transcendent genius may have * cleared at one
bound the space which separated the highest stage of un-
progressive intelligence of the inferior animals from the first
and lowest form of improvable reason manifested by man.'
In other words, the unprogressive ape leaped into the im-
provable man. Wc might indeed here ask if, in this long
leap, he lost his prehensile feet, his projecting snout, and
his formidable jaws ; we might ask if the shape of his pelvis
was changed during that happy jump, and if the capacity
of his skull was doubled, and the convolutions of his brain
were altered ; and if he left behind him his demon figure
and aspect ; but these arc questions of comparatively small
import; for he became a man with 'an improvable
reason,' and that is a thousandfold of higher import than
these anatomical considerations. With his reason he be-
came as the Gods, knowing good and evil — the moral
sense was awakened in him — conscience set up its tribunal

OF TRANSMUTATION, 225

in his breast; virtue became desirable to him, justice,
mercy, benevolence, forbearance, honour, courtesy, sacri-
fice of self, and a long train of other beautiful spirits came
to lodge with him ; and he learned that to do unto others
as he would desire that others should do unto himself, was
a rule of conduct fulfilling all righteousness.

He had an eye now for beauty, and he found it every-
where on the earth, in the waters, and in the sky. He
admired the ordinances of the seasons and the arrange-
ments that pervade all Nature. He saw, or fancied that
he saw, (poor deluded creature that he was !) a design of a
great Artificer in every existing thing on the face of the
earth, and the more he studied them the more did the
proofs of design and skill crowd on his understanding.
The Religious sentiment now kindled in his bosom, and he
bowed down in lowly reverence to his Maker and his God.
Religious Ught rose upon him more and more unto the
perfect day, and he considered himself a responsible being
in a probation for futurity. This may have been a delusion
in him, but we know very well as a fact that it was so, for
man had not yet learned the hylology of Natural Selection.
Then with the gift of Reason and Imagination he rose on
the wings of intellect as a poet, an orator, a philosopher.
Then was there a Homer, a Milton, a Shakespeare, a
Demosthenes, a Newton, a Laplace in the world. Then
did minds plunge into the Infinite, and then did they con-
tinually advance and mount upwards in the mountain re-
gions of science, ascending higher, and yet finding still
greater heights beyond.

Well, then, at last we come to this point, was man with
reason and a conscience made to be man by the progress

of events, taking their natural course — and was he by

226 LYELVS CONFUTATION

gradual improvement without design elaborated out of an
ape ; or did that Supreme Power, which all nations beheve
to be God, make him to be what he is, by intention,
design, and creation ? If this former supposition be true,
then the Metaphor of Natural Selection is omniscient
and omnipotent, then must it be acquainted with all the
sciences in their very essence, and be able to do all things;
for unless we concede that wonderful and elaborate ma-
chines can make themselves, then certain it is that some
other power must both contrive and construct them. Now
this power in the Theory is Natural Selection. It is dis-
tinctly called so by Mr Darwin, for he tells us, in speaking
of the formation of the eye as an optical instrument, that
we are to ' suppose there is a potver, Natural Selection,
abvays intently watching each slight accidental alteration
in the transparent layers, and carefully selecting each altera-
tion which may in any way produce a distinctive image/
&c. (208). This power, therefore, is to all intents and pur-
poses his God ; and as he does not allow an act of creation
by the interference of divine power, he sets up another to
do the work by metaphorical agency.

Now all this is clearly perceived by Sir C. Lycll, and
thus acknowledged : —

' In our attempts to account for the origin of Species, we
find ourselves face to face with the working of a law of de-
velopment of so high an order as to stand nearly in the
same relation as the Deity himself to man's finite under-
standing, a law capable of adding new and powerful causes,
such as the moral and intellectual faculties of the human
race, to a system of nature which had gone on for millions
of years ivithout the intervention of any analogous cause.
If we confirm Variation or Natural Selection with such

OF TRANSMUTATION. 227

creational laws, we deify Secondary causes, or immeasurably
exaggerate their influence/

This is plainly stated, and would lead one to suppose
that after such an acknowledgment Natural Selection was
to be discarded as inadmissible : not so, however, for the
learned author goes on to say : —

* Yet we ought by no means to undervalue the import-
ance of the step which will have been made, should it ever
become highly probable that the past changes of the or-
ganic world have been brought about by the subordinate
agency of such causes as Variation and Natural Selection.
All our advances in the knowledge of Nature have con-
sisted of stich steps as these, and we must not be dis-
couraged because greater mysteries remain behind wholly
inscrutable to us' (Antiquity, 469).

In other words, if Natural Selection should appear as
the probable agent of the changes of the organic world, we
must accept it as a great mystery. Now, as the whole
bearing of Sir C. Lyell's book on the Antiquity of Man,
is to show the reasonableness of Natural Selection, and to
speak of it as a marvellous discovery in science, we come
to the conclusion that Natural Selection * stands in the
same relation as the Deity himself to man's finite under-
standing.'

Thus, then, we are taught that Natural Selection, or * the
sequence of events as observed by us,' is the substitute for
the Creator, and that ' the progress of events, without direc-
tion or plan,' is the cause of the existence of all organic
beings : or, to condense the whole mystery in one compre-
hensive formulary, — the organic world is as it is,

BECAUSE IT IS SO.

In the above passage, however, of Sir C. Lyell, we have

228 LYELU8 CONFUTATION

two exceptions to make. First, to his statement that our
* advances in the knowledge of Nature have been by such
steps as these/ This cannot be admitted for a moment.
True Knowledge never made a single step like this ; of the
Saltatory principle she knows nothing — from close and
rigid induction she never leapt to metaphorical language,
as a substitute for facts. Bacon never admitted anything
like Natural Selection as an augment of science ; Kepler,
Newton, llerschel, Laplace, Cuvier, Davy, never reasoned
through such instrumentality; every branch of science
repudiates a method like this; it must seek its resting-
place in the realm of the imagination to which it properly
belongs.

Secondly. We object to Variation and Natural Selection
being represented as ' subordinate agents.' To what power
arc they subordinate? The expression obviously insinuates
that they are subordinate to that higher power, which must
be God. But what God is this ? not the Deity of whom we
have heard. — The deity that created a spore of a sea-weed
as the jmnctiim saliens of the organic world, and then left
it to itself to elaborate every organized being in the lapse
of ' millions of millions ' of ages, is a power of which we
know nothing, and which never yet was heard of till ex-
pounded to us in the Theolog/j* of Mr Dar\vin — or, if not
by him, accepted by Sir C. Lyell. A deity of this sort is
more absurd than that of the Epicureans, for they said of

* It is not clear that Mr*Danvin admits the first organic being of bif
systeni, the spore, to be a result of creation. He seems rather to leave iti
origin undetermined, and wisely enough, fur as he rejects spontaneouf
generation, there wu8 but one other alternative in this delicate point of
the Theory. In page 515 he quotes the opinion of *a celebrated divine
and writer,' sent to him as a private coniniunicution, and this opinion
would attribute the first form to an act of creative power ; but Mr Darwio
does TH)t inform ur that he endorses that opinion.

OF TRANSMUTATION, 229

the Gods 'Magna curant, parva negligunt;' but of this
deity we must say 'parva curat magna negligit.' He
created the spore of the lowest algae, and. neglected all the
rest of the great organic world. He either could not or
would not do more than make a spore ; after that he re-
tired into darkness and never again was heard of, no, not
in the appearance of man, for that was not a design of the
creator, but was simply the natural development of an in-
ferior animal.

There can be, then, no admission of the old language in
this system, to save appearances. In the dispensation of
Natural Selection there is no creation, and, by consequence,
there is no creator ; or if there be, then he is inferior to an
ape, for an ape worked itself into a man, but the creator
of this system could only fabricate a spore of a sea-weed,
if, indeed, he did as much as that, which is doubtful, and
which, if asserted, vitiates the logic of the Theory and
militates with its essential principle.

In the preface to the tenth edition of the Principles of
Geology, Sir C. Lyell speaks of ' the times entirely ante-
cedent to the creation of man ' (vii. dated Nov. 6, 1866).
This may possibly be the use of a language of long habit,
to be understood in the general sense of man^s appearance ;
but if it be meant as an expression of the learned author's
opinion of that great event, it must be met with a firm
protest as most inaccurate, and entirely inadmissible in
the system which he has adopted. We know well enough
by this time what Natural Selection really is; we have
seen that Sir C. Lyell has adopted it and written a book of
which one object is to defend it ; we have seen what lie
himself has said of the formation of man, and with all this
before us it is evident that in this quarter to talk of the

230 LYELVS CONFUTATION OF TRANSMUTATION

creation of man is a flagrant abuse of terras. Mr Darwin,
without circumlocution, denies that there is a design: in
the existence of tilings, and here he keeps to the logic of
his system ; nor should any one that adopts it so mar its
harmony as to talk of a design : if there is no design there
is no designer, and thus the stage is left clear for Natural
Selection to work without any interference ; but if anything
has been created it has been designed, and if man has been
created, Natural Selection, either operating slowly or by *a
long leap,' has not been the agent — and the system ' tenues
vanescit in auras.' But it was invented for another ob-
ject, to get rid of the necessity of ' flashes into existence,'
Mr Dar^vin's words for acts of creation. What, then, has
been gained by this elaborate fabric if, after all, it began
with one flash which contained in it all other flashes to the
end of existence ? If man was developed from an ape it
was no * flashing into existence,' it was the natural pro-
gress of events fostering and bringing to perfection *a
favoured race'

CHAFrER XIII.

THE ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS.

There is suflBcient similarity in the general structure of
Etnimals, and of analogy in some of their parts, though in
other respects the animals may be widely different in ap-
pearance and habits, to convince us that this is not acci-
dental ; and, therefore, out of the School of Transmutation,
it is said that there is a general plan which, on the whole, is
sustained throughout the organic world. This plan seems to
have been worked on a type with reference to a future ad-
vancement, and this advancement, in the opinion of many
great physiologists, pointed towards the coming man, who
was to be the crown and consummation of the vertebrated
animals.

Agassiz, in his Principles of Zoology, has thus expressed
it : ' There is a manifest progress in the succession of be-
ings on the surface of the earth. This progress consists in
an increasing similarity of the living fauna and among the
vertebrates, especially in their increasing resemblance to
man. But this connection is not the consequence of a
direct lineage between the faunas of different ages. There
is nothing like parental descent connecting them. The
fishes of the Palaeozoic age are in no respect the ancestors
of the reptiles of the Secondary age, nor does man descend

232 ORGAXIC SIMILARITY OF AXIMALS.

from the mammals which preceded him in the Tertiary
age ; the link by which they are connected is of a higher
and immaterial nature; and their connection is to be
sought in the view of the Creator himself, whose aim in
forming the earth, in allowing it to undei^o the successive
changes which geology has pointed out, and in creating
successively all the different types of animals which have
passed away, was to introduce man upon the surface of the
earth. Man is the end towards which all the animal crea-
tion has tended from the first appearance of the first Palceo-
zoic fishes'

This is said, in substance, also by the illustrious Cuvier;
and Professor Owen has expressed similar sentiments.
* The recognition of an ideal exemplar for the vertebrated
animals proves that the knowledge of such a being as man
must have existed before man appeared. For the Divine
mind that planned the archetype also foreknew all its
modifications. The archetypal idea was manifested in the
flt'sh, under divers modifications upon this planet, long
prior to the existence of those animal species that actually
exemplify it.'

As a short ilhistration of this prophetic aspect of organic
ap|)carances, take the following remarks of Hugh Miller:
' Of the earliest known vertebrates, the placoidal fi>hes of
the upper Silurian rocks, we possess only fragments,
wliich, however, sufficiently indicate that they belonged to
fishes furnished with the two pair of fins, now so generally
recognized as the homologues of the fore and hinder limbs
of (juadrupods.

' With the secoml earliest vertebrates, the ganoid fishes
of tluj Old Red Sandstone, we are more directly acquainted,
and know that they exhibited the true typical form — a vcrte-

ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS, 233

bral column terminating in a brain-protecting skull, and that
in the acanth, celecanth, and dipterian families, they had the
limb-like fins. In the upper part of the system, the earliest
reptiles have the first-known traces of the typical foot, with
its five digits. Higher still, in one of the deposits of the
Trias, we are startled by what seems to be the impression
of a human hand of an uncouth massive shape, but with
thumbs apparently set in opposition, as in man, to the
other fingers. We next trace the type upwards among
the wonderfully developed reptiles of the Secondary periods.
Then among the mammals of the Tertiary ages, higher
and yet higher forms appear ; the mute prophecies of the
coming being will each approach clearer, fuller, more ex-
pressive, and at length receive their fulfilment in* the advent
of man.'

All this of course is viewed in a very difierent light by
the Transmutationists, with whom it is obviously essential
to deny any plan in the general arrangements of the
organic world. For if it be conceded that there is a plan,
this would necessarily imply a presiding intelligent mind,
able to arrange and carry out the plan ; whereas the very
essence of their system is that all living beings are the
result of a non-intelligent sequence of events — of acci-
dental circumstances benefiting and improving ' favoured '
races, and leaving the rest to perish.

All these organic similarities and homologues of parts
are with them evidences of descent. If the placoidal
fishes of the upper Silurian have fins which were homo-
logues of the fore and hinder limbs of quadrupeds, they in-
terpret this that the fish is the ancestor of the quadruped,
and that the quadruped derived his Umbs from the fins of

• Testimony of the Rocks.

234 ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS.

the fish. In the tail of the cow, giraffe, fox, horse, 5:c.,
they see the tail of the fish ' worked up ' for these difibreiit
animals ; modified, and altered indeed, but still made out
of the fish's tail : and thus similitudes and homologues are
all family-marks, and all bespeak one ancestral origin.

* When several characters,' says Mr Darwin, * let them he
ever so trifling, occur together throughout the large group
of beings having difierent habits, we may feel almost sure on
the theory of descent, that the character has been inherited
from a common ancestor ' (458).

Mr Darwin might liave said more than this, for * on the
Theory of Descent,' that is, taking for granted that that
Theory is true, we may be quite sure that these * charac-
ters ' have been inherited from a common ancestor. The
postulate, however, is not conceded, and Mr Darwin has
first to prove that his Theory is true.

However, thus more at length does he explain to us his
views on this particular branch of his Theory : —

' We have seen that the members of the same class, in-
dependently of their habits of life, resemble each other in
the general plan of their organization. This resemblance
is often expressed by the term * unity of type,' or by say-
ing that the several parts and organs in the difierent
species of the class are homologues. The whole subject is
included under the term morphology. What can be more
curious than that the hand of a man formed for grasping,
that of a mole for digging, the leg of a horse, the paddle
of the porpoise, and the wing of the bat, should all be
constructed on the same patteni, and should include simi-
lar bones, in the same relative position ? The parts may
change to almost any extent in fonu and size, and yet
they always remain connected together in the same order.

ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS, 235

We never find, for instance, the bones of the arm and
forearm, or of the thigh and leg, transposed. Hence the
same name can be given to the homologous bones in
widely diflTerent animals.

' Nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to ex-
plain this similarity of pattern in members of the same
class, by utility, or by doctrine of final causes. On the
ordinary view of the independent creation of each being
we can only say that it is — that it has so pleased the
Creator to construct each animal and plant.'

* The explanation is manifest on the theory of Natural
Selection of successive slight modifications — in changes of
this nature there will be little or no tendency to modify
the original pattern, or to transpose parts — the bones
of the limbs might be shortened or widened to any extent,
and become gradually enveloped in thick membrane,
80 as to serve as a fin — or a webbed foot might have
all its bones, or certain bones, lengthened to any extent,
and the membrane connecting them increased to any ex-
tent, so as to serve as a wing, &c. If we suppose that the
ancient progenitor, the archetype as it may be called, of
all mammals had its limbs constructed on the general
pattern, for whatever portion they served, we can at once
perceive the plain signification of the homologous construc-
tion of the limbs throughout the whole class,' &c. (466-7).

This passage, which clearly explains the demands of the
Theory on Morphology, shows also the necessary exclusion
of creation from the system of the Transmutationists, who
reject with disdain' the idea of referring the commencement
of life of an organized being to an operation and a power
which our understanding cannot grasp. The whole rea-
soning, however, goes on the assumption that Natural

236 ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS.

Selection (or the sequence of Natural events) can perform
these operations, and execute these transformations which
seem so easy to Mr Darwin, that it can shorten or widen
limbs to any extent, and cover them with membranes so
as to turn them into a fin ; that a webbed foot can be me-
tamorphosed into a wing, and that animals can be changed
by this agency from fishes to quadrupeds, from quadrupeds
to birds, &c. &c., ad libitum.

Let all this be granted, and the * explanation is manifest ;'
but till it be proved, what is this but corroborating one
assertion by another ? And it is obvious that by taking for
granted the thing to be proved any other hypothetical term
might be substituted for Natural Selection, and might
serve just as well for the argument. For instance, let the
influence of the soil (the hypothesis of M. Tr^maux) or the
agency of the solar heat and light take the place of Natural
Selection in the above passage, and it is obvious that either
would do quite as well for Mr Darwin's explanation of
morphology. Let us, argumenti gratia, say. That the solar
influence has the power of changing the forms of organized
beings, then * on this Theory, in changes of this nature,
there will be no tendency to change the original pattern,'
for the agent must act on what it finds ready at hand.

But Mr Darwin tells us that it is hopeless to explain the
liomologues of morphology by the doctrine of utility and
final causes ; we therefore naturally suppose that he him-
self is able to explain these changes which, he affirms, are
effected by Natural Selection. Will he then undertake to
describe to us in accurate scientific language, the process
by which the wing of a bat, the eye of an eagle, the pro-
boscis of an elephant, the galvanic battery of an electrical
fish, or the heart of a mammifer, were constructed ; and

ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS. 237

that not in general vague terms of ' development, plastic
tendencies, slight modifications, generative variability,' &c.,
but in such clear anatomical, chemical, optical, or dynamic
terms, as the case may require, so as to enal)le us to compre-
hend without any doubt how these marvellous structures
were fabricated, and to know the whole process as satis-
factorily as we know the structure of a watch or a steam-
engine ?

Now, unfortunately, Mr Darwin has in another part of
his book said, *it is most difficult to conjecture by what
transitions organs could have arrived at their present
state' (213).

If even conjecture is at fault here, an instrument which
in Mr Darwin's hands has done such ample service, it
must be utterly hopeless to ask for certainty ; and if even
imagination can do nothing, how can we look for a scientific
exegesis ? In short, it is manifest not only by this confes-
sion, but by the very nature of the question itself, that the
learned author of the Theory has here come to a dead-lock ;
and therefore we beg leave to turn his own language upon
himself, and to say * nothing can be more hopeless than to
attempt to explain this similarity of pattern in members of
the same class by Natural Selection and the Struggle for
Life.'

But it seems that in our view of the case we can only
say 'it pleased the Creator to construct each animal or
plant.' In other words, we do not scruple to confess ' we
do not know ; ' we suppose we have reached the limits of
knowledge when we come to a certain point, and there we
stop; and we judge confessed ignorance to be far safer
than pretended knowledge.

And what can be the ultimate advantage of attempting

238 ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS.

to force an entrance into the unapproachable ? Are there
not some things, nay, very many, beyond the sphere of
our intellect, even if it be taken for granted that there is
no supreme Intelligent Mind, which has produced all the
forms of life in this our planet, and in all the planets of all
the systems in the Universe. If the Transmutationists
complain that we check the spirit of discovery by taking
refuge in a Deity, we reply that they too have their Deity,
beyond whom they cannot advance. They have ' a power
incessantly watching to improve any modification for the
benefit of the organic world.' This unquestionably is a
Deity, and, moreover, it is one whose actions the great
Master of the School declares it is impossible to ex-
plain even by conjecture. This, in other words, is the old
language, * his ways are past finding out/ We then claim
our Deity, and that not an Allegory, a Metaphor, an illu-
sion of words, but a Supreme Intelligent Power which
always has watched to develope all possibilities of existence,
and whose ' ways are past finding out/ We only ask that
our Deity may know as much, and be able to do as much,
as Natural Selection — be as wise, as prescient, and as benefi-
cent — and we arc quite sure that all the mysteries of the
organic world will then be explained up to a certain point.
And what, we would ask, is the real difference if on the one
hand it be said, that it pleased the Creator to make a plant
or animal so and so, and leave it unexplained ; or, on the
other hand, to affirm that Natural Selection made a plant
or animal so and so, and yet not be able even to conjecture
by what means it was effected ?

After all, then, it is a question between two Deities.
Lot the world judge whether it is wiser and better to be-

ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS. 239

lieve in these ' new gods newly come up/ or in Him who
from everlasting to everlasting is the Almighty ?

These sentiments it may be pleasing to see confirmed by
the testimony of a distinguished physiologist.

* The unity of plan, which is visible through the whole
animal kingdom, is nowhere more remarkable than in the
function (of the heart) of which an outline has now been
given. We have seen that, however apparently different,
the essential character of the reproductive process is the
same in the highest animal as in the lowest. It has been
shown that the development of the highly-organized body
of man commences from the same starting-point with that
of the meanest creature living ; for even man, in all the
pride of his philosophy, and all^the splendour of his luxury,
was once but a single cell, undistinguishable, by all human
means of observation, from that which constitutes the en-
tire fabric of one of the simplest plants. And when the
physiologist is inclined to dwell unduly upon his capacity
for penetrating the secrets of Nature, it may be salutary for
him to reflect that, even when he has attained the farthest
limit of science, by advancing to those general principles
which tend to place it on the elevation which others have
already reached, he yet knows nothing of those wondrous
operations, which are the essential parts of every one of
those complicated functions, by which the life of the body
is sustained. Why one cell should absorb \ why another,
that seems exactly to resemble it, should assimilate ; why
a third should secrete ; why a fourth should prepare the re-
productive germs ; and why of two germs that seem exactly
similar, one should be developed into the meanest Zoophyte,
and another into the complex fabric of man, — arc questions
that physiology is not likely ever to answer.

240 ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS.

' All our science is biit the investigation of the mode or
plan on which the Creator acts ; the power which operates
is infinite, and therefore inscrutable to our limited compre-
hension. But when man shall have passed through this
embryo state, and shall have undergone that metamorphosis,
by which everything whose purpose was temporary shall
be thrown aside, and his permanent or immortal essence
shall alone remain, then, we are encouraged to believe, his
finite mind shall be raised more nearly to the character of
the infinite ; all his highest aspirations shall be gratified,
and never-ending sources of delightful contemplation shall
be continually opening to his view.

* The philosopher who has attained the highest summit
of mortal wisdom, is he who, if he use his mind aright, has
the clearest perception of the limits of human knowledge,
and the most earnest desires for the lifting of the veil that
separates him from the unseen.' — Animal Physiology, by
Dr Carpenter, p. 507.

But we pass on from general principles to details, to ex-
amine more particularly the theory of descent as proved
by homologues, or by repetition of character, in groups of
animals of different habits.

We are told that the ' number of the vertebrae forming
the neck of the giraffe and the elephant, at once explain
themselves on the theory of descent with slow and slight
successive modifications.' This argument is of course
applicable to the human form also, and we may therefore
add man to the giraffe and elephant, so that the argument
would be that the elephant, giraff'c, and man are seen to
be of the same descent bv the number of their cervical
vertebra?.

ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS. 241

But we are further informed, ' on the principle of suc-
cessive variations not always supervening at an early age,
and being inherited at a corresponding not early period of
life, we can clearly see why the embryos of mammals,
birds, reptiles, and fishes, should be so closely alike, and
should be so unlike the adult forms ' (513).

This enigma of words requires explanation. Mr Darwin
neans to inform us that there is a principle by which
variations, or great differences, do not make their appear-
mce (supervene) in the beginning of their existence, but
jvhen they grow older these come on by inheritance. Or
still plainer, a man is a fish at first, but his variation from
the fish form does not ' supervene ' at an early age, but is
inherited later in life. He is in fact a varied or meta-
morphosed fish when he becomes a man. Why this
principle ' is delivered to us in the language of an obscure
>racle wuth double negatives, is not apparent — but we may
my of the principle that if the fact had been reversed it
ivould have been *more probable and more convincing — for
f a man became like a fish as he grew older we should
lave a clearer evidence of his * descent/ and it would be
n accordance with what we see in animals, as it is well
cnown that the apes (our near relation in the Theory) de-
)art more and more from the human simiUtude as they
jrow older, and become more thoroughly and unmistakably
he brute beast in the latest period of their lives.

But here there is a collision in the doctrine. Thus
tands the argument, we are clearly of the same descent
vith other mammals, elephants, giraffes, &c., as is proved
)y the number of our cervical vertebra? ; but our em-
)ryonic state connects us closely with birds, for the order

242 ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS.

of our embryonic transition of similitude is the fish, reptile,
bird, mammal. Now the bird has not* the same number
of vertebrae in the neck ; and this, therefore, by Mr Dar-
win's own rule, would show that we are not of the same
descent with the bird ; for if the same number of ccn ical
vertebrse identifies us in descent with mammals, a differ-
ence in the number must separate us from the bird, and
show that we are not of the same descent. And yet the
contrary is proved, according to Mr Darwin, by the en-
dcnce of the embryo !

Here, then, the Theory militates with itself, and con-
futes itself.

As a common descent of all organic beings is that on
which the Theory depends, and as a family relationship is
everything in this system, w^e need not be surprised to find
that the learned author of the system should allow himself
great latitude in tracing the genealogy. 'We have no
written pedigrees,' says he, * we have to make out com-
munity of descent hjj resemblances of any kind. Therefore
wc choose those characters which, as far as we can judge,
are the least likelv to have been modified in relation to the
conditions of life to which each species has been recently
exposed. A\'e care not how trifling a character may be, let
it be the mere inflection of the angle of the jaw, the man-
ner in which an insect's wing is folded, whether the skin
be covered with hair or feathers — if it prevail throughout
nmny and different species, especially those having ven*
different habits of life, it assumes high value ; for we can
account for its presence in so many forms with such differ-

* No bird has so few as seven vertebra9 in the neck : the eagle and the
vulture have eacli 13, the osprcy 14, the blackbird 11, the crow 13, the
kingfisher 12, the sparrow 9, the woodpecker 12, the peacock 14, the
obtrich 18, the heron 18, tlie stork 19, the goose 15, tlie swan 23, &c.

ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS. 243

ent habits, only by inheritance from a common parent'
(457).

There is of course another way of accounting for this,
the old way adopted by most physiologists, but as this
cannot be admitted in the Theory, Mr Darwin does well to
look out for another explanation, which, like every other
part of the Theory, if it be accepted, must be accepted as a
dogma without proof.

Let us look now at" similitudes and homologues of
structure in a common-sense view of the subject, and see if
it be so very difficult. First, however, we will take a
statement of the subject from an approved author.

* The four component parts of the upper extremity, viz.,
the shoulder, arm, fore-arm, and hand, can be clearly
shown to exist in the anterior extremities of all mammalia,
however dissimilar they may appear on a superficial in-
spection, and however widely they may seem to deviate
from the human structure. The wings of the bat, osteo-
logically considered, are hands; the bony stretchers of
the cutaneous membrane being the digital phalanges ex-
tremely elongated. The dolphin, porpoise, and all other
whales have a fin on each side, just behind the head,
consisting apparently of a single piece. But we find,
under the integuments of this fin-like member, all the
bones of an inferior extremity, flattened indeed, and hardly
susceptible of motion on each other, but distinctly recog-
nizable ; these are a scapula, humerus, bones of the fore-
arm, carpus, metacarpus, and five fingers. The fore-feet
of the sea-otter, seal, walrus, and manati, form the con-
necting links between the anterior extremities of other
mammalia and the pectoral fins of the whale kind. The
bones are so covered and connected by integuments, as to

2U ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS.

constitute a part adapted to swimming; but these are
much more developed than in the latter animal, and have
free motion on each other. The bones of the wings of
birds have a great and unexpected resemblance to those
of the fore-feet of the mammalia ; and the fin- like anterior
member of the penguin, applicable only to swimming,
contains within the integuments the same bones as the
wings of other birds, which execute the very different
office of flight.'*

So also, more particularly, another physiologist : —

* The fore-limbs of all species of animals are similar to
one another in all respects save that of quantity, and this
quantative difference is manifested chiefly upon the distal
extremities. The obliteration of one or more parts of the
distal organ renders it in the varying conditions of those
forms to which we give the names of hands, paws, wings,
palms, talons, hoofs, &c. The same law of degradation is
exercising on the distal extremes of the hind limb, and
according to the quantative variety of these organs we
characterize them bv the like names. The hand and the
foot are radically the same organ ; not only in the same
body but in all bodies.' — Maclise in Cyclopaedia of Anatomy
and Physiology, iv. CG.

This being the general state of the case by which the
Transniiitationist fortifies his Theory of a common an-
cestral descent of all animals, let us consider whether it
may not much more justly be viewed in another light.

L(it us suppose that a plan of creation had been adopted,
with the object of producing a vast variety of forms of
life, in beings organized for that j)urpose, with widely dif-
ferent habits, and destined to occupy certain positions for

♦ Lnwrcnce'H Lectures on Zoolog}', 48.

ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS. 245

diflFerent objects. First, the animal in the abstract is to be
dealt with ; what is it to be ? It is to be a sentient being,
connected through its senses with the outward world, in
which it is to live and be perpetuated. It must have,
then, organs to connect it with the outward world, in that
portion of the world which is destined to be its theatre of
life, and which may influence the amount of its requisite
sensations, and its functions. If it has a lower position to
take, or a confined theatre of existence, its wants will be
fewer, and several parts will be omitted in its organization
which may be required for a higher or more active sphere
of existence. But let us take a specimen of a complete
animal, one destined to enjoy life upon earth, and freely
to move itself at liberty according to its wishes.

It must have organs to connect it with the outer world,
organs that will enable it to see, to hear, to feel, to smell,
and to taste. These senses seem indispensable. Then it
must have free powers of locomotion, and a structure to
enable it to assimilate food and sustain hfe ; and if, also,
it is to be perpetuated, and not disappear from the scene,
the faculty of reproduction is to be conferred on it, and
that as an imperative principle.

These are the functions of animal life, or those of rela-
tion, including sensation and voluntary motion, by which
animals approach and perceive their fellow-creatures and
objects around them, and bring them into relation with
them : and next, the fmictions of vegetable life, which are
nutrition and reproduction ; and which last are common
to the animal and the vegetable.

Now, for the two distinguishing characteristics of animals,
sensation and motion, two systems of organs are prepared,
the nervous and muscular. The nervous, through which

246 ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS.

the impulses of the will are conveyed; and the muscular,
which puts in motion the body according to the dictates of
the will.

The monitors of the will are mainly in the senses, and
it is in these that the intention of one plan is seen, as well
as in the organs which execute the impulses of the will.
The great illuminator of the will is the eye, that organ
which is to acquaint the animal with the state of things
around it, and so enable it to adapt its actions accordingly,
by seeking what it wishes, or avoiding what it would re-
ject or fear. The eye, therefore, is one of the most ancient
of organs, far more ancient than a fin or a wing, for it is
found in the early Silurian formation, as a very complicated
optical instrument in the crustacean Trilobite, and con-
structed on true scientific principles. This organ having
once been made, is adhered to, in the general plan, in every
other instance in which it was expedient to place an animal
in relation with the outward world by the visual faculty.
The optic instniment may be varied, as it is greatly varied
in numerous adaptations or modifications, but still it is
essentially the same instrument in every case, and con-
structed on the same principle. It may, therefore, as
much be deemed a homologue as any other organ of
which physiology points out the less obvious relations.

The principle of creation, then, is to produce an organ
which will answer for a general purpose, and not to make
a new one, on a totally difierent principle, for that same
purpose in organized beings of different characters. The
eyes of the felida) and of the ruminants, of the owl and
the englc, of the dragon-fly and the bee, of man and of the
(log, arc executed on one type, with modifications or addi-

ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS. 2i7

tions, but all are the design of one artist for one object on
one plan.

It might have been possible on a very diflTerent principle
to have conferred the faculty of vision on man ; or at least
we may suppose so ; but why should a totally new instru-
ment be invented when the optic machine already in use
amongst all vertebrated animals had answered the purposes
for which it was intended, and which it was certain would
do for man all that was wanted, and by him be recognized
as a most perfect organ ?

And surely this adhering to one type argues skill in the
Artist who couM thus modify one instrument for thousands
of diflTerent creatures, and yet make it perfect for all the
varieties of habit and character by which those creatures
were to be distinguished.

This principle then prevails through creation, to make
one organ serve various purposes in various animals. The
senses are admonished by similar organs to regulate the
will, and the limbs are constructed on a similar plan to
execute the impulses of the will.

Locomotion is one principle, but as it may be greatly
varied in various sorts of motion in widely diflFerent habits
of life, it will require limbs of different strength, size, and
arrangement : so different, that if the problem had been
proposed to the cleverest mechanician, he would have pro-
nounced it to be clearly impossible to construct the organs
of locomotion on one type. With locomotion is found
very early, and in full activity, a plan that has never
been materially altered. The placoidal fish belong to the
earliest specimens of their genus, but their two pairs of
fins are generally recognized as the homologues of the fore

248 ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS,

and hinder limbs of quadrupeds. The legs of the horse
were designed in futurity in the fins of the placoidal fish :
and so, as we have seen, through all the ranks of animals,
arms, legs, hands, palms, talons, hoofs, &c., are considered
radically the same.

The fact is conceded by all parties, the plan is contested
by the Transmutationists ; but taking it as a plan, shall
we not be compelled to confess that if success is the test
of excellence, here excellence must be recognized in the
highest degree? And if we argue 'on the theory of
creation ' (these are Mr Darwin's words, not ours), does not
this look very much as if the Supreme Intelligence, which
directed creation, held all forms of life within its ken, and
had them as it were within its grasp, so that the end was
seen from the beginning, and from the beginning to the
end one plan was sustained, as by one Mind, master of the
whole work ?

And if we compare this * theory ' with the Antitheos,
Natural Selection, shall wc not be constrained to confess
that here is something vastly superior to that other system,
which supposes organized beings to have been produced bv
empirical efforts, and the casting away of thousands and
tens of thousands of patterns and experiments which were
found to be imperfect ?

The Deity of the Transmutationists, Natural Selection,
makes an animal perfect by exterminating enormous num-
bers of experimental animals, not good for the puq^ose for
which they had been elaborated. The workshop of this
Deitv is a vast slauditer-house* of incalculable carnage,

♦ Natural Selection may indeed be defined to be Tlie Result of Destruc-
tion^ for Mr Darwin has binisclf so stated it, ' Natural Selection results from
the struggle for existence' (464). Thus a bat's wing or a horse's tail is
the result of destruction !

ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS. 249

mountains of skeletons attest its blunders, according to the
assertion of its votaries, if only these mountains could be
found, but this they affirm, and are indeed obhged to affirm ;
but as they believe this, how can they look upon Nature as
a lovely scene, or see in it any beauty ? must they not
rather regard it as a great battle-field, in which every living
creature has murdered its ancestors, and is preserving a
precarious existence by exterminating every competitor,
whilst its own life is nothing but a triumphant blunder ?

This indeed is plainly affirmed by Mr Darwin in the
most startling passage of all his volume. * By far the most
important consideration is that the chief part of the organ-
ization of every being is simply due to inheritance; and
consequently, though each being assuredly is well fitted for
its place in Nature, many structures have now no direct re-
lation to the habit of each species. We cannot believe
that the similar bones in the arm of the monkey, in the
fore-leg of the horse, in the wing of the bat, and in the
flapper of the seal, are of special use to those aninials. We
may safely attribute those structures to inheritance ' (220).

The best answer to this solemn trifling would be to take
away those bones from 'those animals,' and to see how
they would do without them. The bones in the fore-leg
of a horse, though similar to those in the arm of a monkey,
do somehow or other enable the horse to go full gallop, in
the extremest speed of his race at the rate of nearly a mile
a minute ; and a monkey mounts a lofty tree with wonder-
ful rapidity, or leaps from branch to branch in a progress
almost resembling the flight of birds, with perfect success,
though his bones may resemble those in the flapper of a
seal ; and a seal progresses through the waters with all the
speed he needs, though there may be a similarity in the

250 ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS.

structure of his flapper to the wings of a bat. No special
use ! then we must judge that a wiser structure might
have been invented, by a more sagacious artist, for the
benefit of ' those animals/ and that the works of Nature
might be greatly improved.

This, however, must touch us very nearly, for as we are,
according to the Theory, the nearest relations to the apes
and monkeys, it cannot be but that the bones in our arm
are of no special use to us ; we have got them by inherit-
ance, and if they were not advantageous to our ancestors
the apes, they cannot be to us. This one would think is
clear logic, but Mr Darwin states it differently, and affirms
that they were of more use to our progenitors than they are
to us.

' We may believe,' says he, ' that the progenitor of the
seal had not a flipper, but a foot with five toes fitted for
walking or grasping, and we may further venture to believe
that the several bones in the limbs of the monkey, horse,
or bat, which have been inherited from a common progeni-
tor, tvere formerly of more special use to that progenitor, or
its progenitors, than they now are to those animals having
such widely diversified habits ; every detail of structure in
every living creature may be viewed, either as having been
of some special use to some ancestral form, or as being now
of special use to the descendants of this form, either directly
or indirectly, through the complex laws of growth ' (220).

If the progenitor of the seal had a foot with five toes,
fitted for walking or grasping, it must have been, according
to any inference which Natural History would authenticate,
either a man or an ape, unless indeed it were the planti-
grade bear, which has a tendency in the Theory to get into
the ocean in a new form. But who can hold the eel of

ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS. 251

this science by the tail ? for it can shp oflF into the pre-
Silui-ian world, where there were 'swarms' of creatures
* totally unlike any existing animal/ and amongst some of
those inexpressible vertebrated forms, the walking five-toed
progenitor of the seal may have had his auspicious exist-
ence.

But at any rate if the bones of a monkey were formerly
of more special service to its progenitor than to the monkey
itself, the same must be predicated of us, the near rela-
tions of that tribe, and who have the homologue of our
limbs in 'other animals of such widely diversified habits/
for the rule that is good for one genus is good for another,
if indeed we be separated from the Simian race by so
great a division as a genus.

We have then had a progenitor whose legs and arms
were of more special use to him than to us his descendants,
nay, ' every detail of our structure ' had some special use
in our ancestor in a higher degree than it has in us.
Our limbs are but an expedient, a tinkering and cobbling
of appendages, obsolete in our species, but of which Na-
tural Selection has made the best she could, finding them
on her hands for work, and constrained as she was to turn
to some account these inheritances from a better formed
and better limbed progenitor.

The machinery of our bodies therefore has not been im-
proving in the lapse of geological time, but deteriorating ;
and we are greatly mistaken if we suppose that the human
limbs, their proportions and their uses, are the most ad-
vanced results of anatomical construction — if special use
of limbs can be considered a proof of superior organization,
then, by this doctrine, it is indisputable that a retrograde
course of development is discernible in the formation of the

252 ORGANIC SIMILABITY OF ANIMALS.

human body — and that if we be indeed improved apes, we
have nevertheless deteriorated from our unknown ancestors,
whose history is lost in the night of geological antiquity.

But this also demands observation, that with all this
before us it is clear that the Theory must have been
suspended in the instance of this ancient Incognito, for if
his limbs were of more special use to him than they have
been to his descendants, he ought to have been triumphant
in the struggle for existence, as it is always the specially
formed animal, possessing the greater advantages, that
triumphs in the scuffle, and exterminates all other com-
petitors. So, however, it happens that his specially service-
able limbs were of no avail in his case : the Theory was
turned against him, the favoured animal was exterminated,
and the inferior were perpetuated ; and thus, instead of
our non-pareil ancestor with his perfect limbs, we have
had bats, seals, donkeys, apes, and men !

At the same time it is not to be forgotten that Mr
Darwin has given another account of the progenitor of
vertebrate animals, and therefore of our genus, as well as
of the animals just named: 'An indefinite repetition of
the same part or organ is the common characteristic of all
low or little-modified forms, therefore tve may readily be-
lieve that the unknown progenitor of the vertebrata pos-
sessed many vertebrae ' (4G9).

If this be the common progenitor of the horse, monkey,
bat, seal, &c., then to our surprise we now hear of him as
' a low and little- modified ' form, whilst in the passage
which we have just been examining his limbs are described
as having been of more use to him than to his descendants.
Here is a contradiction ; but perhaps Mr Darwin mav in-

OBGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS, 253

tercalate millions of ages between the progenitor of the
horse, &c., and the progenitor of the vertebrata, we know
not ; only on this subject we must repeat what we have
already said, that this imaginary progenitor of the verte-
brata ruins the whole system, for his appearance on the
scene with many vertebrae, ready made, contradicts all
that the learned author has inculcated with such careful
repetition in his volume — that nature does nothing ' by
leaps, and that every peculiar part of every animal is the
result of Natural Selection's labours in an immense allow-
ance of time.

And from this there is no escape, for if the animal in
question was the progenitor of the vertebrata, he could
have been preceded by no othier vertebrated animal, he
must have been the first ; and yet he had a great many
vertebra? all at once ! In other words, he was so created,
for Natural Selection could not produce such a phenomenon,
and there is no other alternative possible for his first ap-
pearance, excepting spontaneous generation, which Mr
Darwin rejects as inadmissible in science. So then, after
all, the first vertebrated was really created ! Here, then, we
have the happiness to agree with Mr Darwin; and the
only difference between us is that we beg leave to extend
the rule to a vast many other cases. We have no doubt
that the progenitor of a bird had many feathers, of a fish
many scales, of an insect many facets in its compound eye,
and so on throughout the animated world.

We need not tarry to inquire more particularly about
this alleged progenitor of the vertebrata, but by this im-
perfect allusion to his form, it is most probable that he was
a serpent, and a very long one too ; for as he must have

254 ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS.

been parent of all serpents, we cannot doubt that he had
more vertebra3 than his descendants, in this case of descent,
as well as in all the others.

The general plan of structure that seems to have been
determined in the organization of animals, admits both of
additions and omissions when the case requires ; and by
this fact teaches us that there must have been something
more than inheritance at work, for inheritance can neither
add nor leave out a part of the body.

Let us take a true insect, a bee for instance. The
thorax is interposed between the head and the abdomen,
and so far is analogous to that part in human anatomy,
though it is but an analogy. To the thorax are attached
the three pairs of legs ; the first pair may be compared with
the pectoral extremities of the vertebrate animals, and the
last to the pelvic members or hind legs, hut to the mkldk
pair of the insect's legs there is no analogue in the vertebrate
series* These therefore are out of the rule and type of
other animals.

So when we speak of the insect's eye, we say it is formed
on the general principle, or rather, scientific theory of all
other eyes, the optic nerve, the vitreous humour, the lens,
and the retina ; but the plan on which the principle is ap-
plied is greatly altered, and that which in the vertebrated
animals is a single instrument is in insects a compound
one, so as to contain some thousand facets, or comeae, each
a distinct instrument of vision in that compound hemi-
spherical organ, which is popularly called the eye ; each of
these facets is^of hexagonal form, and each has its pecuhar

* Mr Darwin lias observed that * tlio anterior and posterior limbs in
each member of the vertebrate and articulate classes are plainly homolo-
gous* (4G8), but he has made no remark on the middle legs of the artica-
late class.

ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS. 255

double convex lens, iris and pupil, so as to be fully entitled to
be considered a distinct instrument of vision, to be, in fact,
an eye. Of* these we are told the common house-fly has
4000 ; some dragon-flies upwards of 12,000 ; and butter-
flies 17,855 ; whilst one of the Coleoptera, Mordella, pos-
sesses the astonishing number of 25,088.

This apparatus of vision in the insect race is not then on
the general plan of the eye of other animals ; there has
been a free choice and exercise of judgment in its arrange-
ment, and the result is manifest, a separation in this
respect, as in many others, from any imaginary line of
descent.

Then if we look at the whale, we find indeed the anterior
extremities converted into broad fins or paddles, and re-
presenting a large hand, whilst the pelvic extremities, the
analogues of the hinder Umbs of other vertebrata, are abso-
lutely wanting. Now the whale is a placental mammifer,
and suckles its young. Hence there is in it a community
of organization and character with the higher animals, but
it has no hinder limbs. They are omitted.

How is this by the Theory of inheritance ? and more
particularly may we be inquisitive on this subject, when
the Theory furnishes us with the genealogy of the whale,
and gives us the bear as its immediate ancestor. The bear
has a well-formed proper foot, of which the heel, carpus,
metacarpus, and phalanges rest flat on the ground. It
was intended that he should walk, and make great
use of his pelvic extremities ; all is well and largely de-
veloped in his body for that purpose — it is scarcely possi-
ble to have selected an ancestor more unlike his descend-
ant, in this respect.

* Jones, Auimal Kingdom, 277.

256 ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS.

If, then, omissions can take place in an alleged descent
and additions to any amount be admitted, who can believe
in such a law of heritage ? Of what use is it to prove any-
thing ? and who can listen to its evidence, when it shows
a rudimental transitory resemblance to a fish, or other
lower animal, in the embryo of a vertebrate animal ?

The serpent form, devoid both of the anterior and pos-
terior limbs, may be taken as another instance. It is an
animal apparently without the organs of locomotion, and if
seen for the first time would be pronounced to be an im-
movable machine; but by other contrivances, which we
certainly never should have imagined, with what rapidity
can it move, and execute all its terrible designs ! The artist
of the animal form has not been circumscribed within the
limits of our ideas, but has in thousands of instances
proved to us that there may be something far beyond
transmutation and the law of descent, in the mystery of
organic structure.

But now we come to the bat, and its finger-stretched
wing. It w\as not created a bat, we are told, but was
worked out of some other form by Natural Selection, in
the usual protracted operation carried on through midti-
plied ages. It had, however, some other wingless body
before the operation began : it was some animal of some
sort before the process of transformation commenced ; and
as there are several sorts of bats, and several sizes of them,
some of them must have been as small as mice, and some
as large as rabbits. If we were to concede that they used
to live on insects before they acquired their wings— and
tlicrc seems to be no other alternative — ^^they must have
been pinched with scanty fare in their first state, as they
do not procure more than sufficient now with their very

ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS. 257

rapid flight. However, in due time the process of wing-
making began. Their fore feet or paws began to lengthen,
but oh, how slowly ! The hundredth part of an inch in a
thousand years would be quick work with Natural Selec-
tion : but the bones lengthened. When they had been
elongated to the fourth part of their present extension,
what a miserable condition must the poor creatures have
been in ! they had lost their paws, which we cannot but
suppose used to do them some service, and had got
nothing as yet by the change. They could not run as
they used, and they could not fly. But the Theory re-
quires us to suppose that the Transmutation thus far ad-
vanced had been found advantageous, though it must cer-
tainly have been injurious : and we are further to suppose
that all the unchanged animals, on whom this process had
not been carried on, were dying off* in the struggle for life,
and that the quarter-bats were triumphing. So they went
on lengthening their bones, and exterminating all competi-
tors till nothing was left but the perfect bat !

Now this seriously is the history of their formation ac-
cording to the Theory. There can be no other ; and this
history may serve for all other transmutations, mutatis mu-
tandis. It is, indeed, too ridiculous for the pages of Na-
tural History, and is worth only this, that it may convince
the inquirer of the impossibility of these changes, as the
intermediate state required in these transmutations could
have no other effect than to exterminate the animals* pass-

* This has been noticed by Professor Owen in his Palaeontology. IIo
quotes Mr Darwin's imaginary case of dogs preying on hares and rabbits
— ^tho rabbits become scarce, and the hares increase ; in this emergency
the dog would endeavour to catch more hares, and those individuals with
slightly plastic limbs^ longest legs, and best eye-sight, would bo * slightly
favoured,* would tend to live longer, and survive when the food waj)
scarcest. They would also rear more young, which would tend to inherit

258 ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS,

ing through it, not those which the Theory supposes were
destroyed as the consequence of their remaining stationary.

The case of the bat seems to puzzle even Mr Darwin,
for he says, ' if it had been asked how an insectivorous
quadruped could possibly have been converted into a fly-
ing bat, the question would have been far more difficult,
and I could have given no answer' (198).

That is, the author of the Theory cannot explain the
process of formation ; and yet when we confess our in-
ability to explain the first appearance of an animal in the
theatre of life, and refer it to the act of a Creator, we are
twitted with our ignorance, and our attempt to conceal it
by such a reference. Here, however, Mr Darwin is pre-
cisely in the same position with us — * he can give no an-
swer/ Nescio is the explanation ; and so it is with us,
only we leave the matter where we are sure there is a
power that is equal to all these difficulties. Mr Danvin
leaves it with nothing, though he has in his hands Natural
Selection, in which he assures us he ' has such confidence/
that ' he sees no difficulty in believing ' anything he mav
ascribe to its operation.

Having, however, thus candidly confessed to a check-

tho sliglit peculiarities. The less fleet ones would be rigidly destroje<l.
* I see no reason to doubt that tbese causes would in a thousand genera-
tions produce a marked effect, and adapt the form of the dog to catching
hares/

On this Professor Owen remarks : * Yet this condition of things, if fol-
lowed out to its full consequences, seems only to tend to my original in-
ference, viz. an extinction of species, for when the hares were all destroyed
the long-legged dogs would perish — at most, there could but be a re-
version to the first form and conditions* (435). We may add, that *the
sliglitly plastic limbs ' is a gentle phrase for self'transforming, and is a co-
vert assumption of the whole question. These short-legged dogs, how-
ever, would die in a very short time for want of food. One generatioo
would see them all out : wo need not speculate on a thousand.

This imaginary case is strictly Lamarckian, it is based on Die priociple
of appetency.

ORGANIC SIMILARITY OF ANIMALS. 259

mate, Mr Darwin adds these words: ' Yet I think such dif-
ficulties have little weight.' What then can have weight
in such scales as these? a hundred- weight seems not to
be reckoned so much as a scruple in the School of Trans-
mutation.

CHAPTER XIV.

ORGANIC DISTINCTIONS.

We have been speaking of similarities of organization,
we have now to say something of the ordinations of divi-
sion or distinction, by which certain animals, whatever may
be the similarity of parts of their limbs or bodies, are ar-
ranged in broad manifest separation of distinct groups, so
as to preclude the idea of any possible transition from one
to the other.

In a popular view of the animal kingdom this would ap-
pear sufficiently plain in the most obvious examples, as, for
instance, the distinction between the carnivora and the
ruminants ; for no one uninitiated in the mysteries of the
Transmutationists could ever be brought to believe that a
cow had, by any quantity of changes in her ancestors, pro-
ceeded from the stock which produced a tiger or a lion.
But though this common-sense view of the question of Dis-
tinction of animals is really unanswerable, yet there arc
some other considerations of deeper moment that claim our
attention.

Physiologists who have carefully studied organic beings,
with a view to establish some fundamental system of ar-
rangement, have observed these distinctions : —

ORGANIC DISTINCTIONS, 261

1 . Creatures whose hearts are divided into four cavities,
mammalia and birds.

2. Those having a heart consisting of three cavities, rep-
tiles and amphibia.

3. Animals possessing a heart with two cavities, fishes
and most mollusca.

4. Animals whose heart consists of a single cavity, arti-
culated animals, worms, and insects.

5. Creatures in which the functions both of stomach and
heart are performed by the same organ, as Medusae.

This arrangement of the Animal Kingdom, in conformity
with the structure of the heart, was proposed by the cele-
brated Hunter, and is here set before the reader that it
may be perceived at a glance how formidable are the bar-
riers which such divisions interpose to obstruct the scheme
of Transmutation. In that theory there must have been a
transference of life across these boundaries. If a reptile
has, for instance, been converted, by Natural Selection and
the Struggle for Life, into a bird, the animal with a heart
of three cavities has, in its new form, assumed a heart of
four ; its circulation has been altered, and the corpuscules
of its blood changed in form : so also the fish has changed
its heart to become a reptile, &c., &c.

The functions of the heart are in the closest connection
with the organization and power of the animal, with the
whole apparatus of its life ; a fish could not, for a few
minutes, exist with a heart different from that which Nature
has bestowed on it ; nor could a bird be a bird with the
heart of a fish or a reptile.

As the reptile is supposed, in the School of Transmuta-
tion, to be the antecedent and ancestor of the bird, we are
to suppose that some time or other the change of structure

262 OBQANIC DISTINCTIONS.

in this particular was effected, and that the transformed or
transforming animal acquired, ready madCy this new centre
of its circulation suited for its new position in life. There
could be no formation by gradual mutation of ages in this
point. The reptile must have its peculiar heart, and so
must the bird. 'Slight modifications' are not admissible
here. Life depends every minute on the action of the
heart, there can be no empirical experiments here, do
* slightly plastic * attempts at a new machine ; to suppose
an animal living with an intermediate heart for a million of
years, must be too desperate a venture for the most ardent
admirers of Natural Selection. That dextrous metaphor
may be ' always on the watch to take advantage of the
slightest beneficial change,* but it would soon be discovered
that no change at all could be made, without destroying
life, and utterly ruining the attempt at metamorphosis.

Therefore we say that a transition from a reptile with a
tripartite heart to a bird with its heart of four cavities is
impossible ; supposing we were to concede that the various
genera and species of birds have slided into one another,
that a blackbird may have had a common ancestor vnih a
crow, and a goose have issued from a swan. This is not
the question of the mutability of species, already discussed,
but of a much wider separation, nature's grand organic
distinctions in'which, by a few settled arrangements of in-
ternal organism, certain animals are totally separated from
one another in the scheme of life ; but which, nevertheless,
Natural Selection is supposed to have surmounted by those
who adopt the theory of Transmutation.

The distinction of the structure of the heart, an efficient
rule for dissociation and sejunction, answers well for a
negative purpose; but for classification something more

ORGANIC DISTINCTIONS. 263

precise is needed, and this has been effected by Cuvier,
who looked more to the nervous system for an accurate
distribution of the animal kingdom. Guided by this in-
dicator he estabUshed his four divisions of Vertebrata,
Mollusca, Articulata, and Radiata, and though these di-
visions, with the exception of the first, are named from their
external appearance, the three first are defined by cha-
racters exclusively drawn from the internal organization.
The nervous system is, in fact, ' the essence and prime dis-
tinction of the animal ' (Owen) ; its mindy so to speak, de-
pends on this; its peculiar character, the result of its
sensibilities, is derived from the nervous centre and its
ramifications ; its body is constructed to suit the impulse
of its will, and its will by the nervous system rules and
directs the body.

The vertebrata rise in the comparative scale of existence
through the peculiar arrangement of their nervous pro-
vision ; Mollusca (oysters, &c., &c.) are obviously creatures
of a lower hfe than the vertebrated fishes. In the Mollusca*
the centres of the nervous system are sometimes disposed
irregularly through the general cavity of the body, some-
times aggregated round the gullet, sometimes arranged
with more symmetry along the abdomen, yet seldom better
cared for or protected than the neighbouring viscera.

This provision, inferior and imperfect as it appears, com-
pared with the nervous furniture of the vertebrata, is fully
adequate for the wants and habits of those lower animals ;
many of which can neither see nor hear, and have but little
need of locomotion in the search for their food.

* *The nervous centres of the Mollusca consist of several detached
masses placed in different parts of the body, without regularity of distri-
bution or symmetrical arrangement.* — Jones, 4.

264 ORGANIC DISTINCTIONS.

When therefore life was to be exalted into a more vigor-
ous manifestation, the vertebral column was formed, a case
and protection for the nervous system, which as the spinal
marrow, ' that mysterious albuminous electric pulp ' (Owen),
is there aggregated in force, and communicates with the
citadel, the brain, shielded in another cavity, the skull.

Two strongly-built cavities, the vertebral column and the
skull, protecting the nervous system, characterize the ver-
tebrated* class ; and this is wanting in all the inferior in-
vertebrated animals. This is one of those great organic
distinctions which bar a translocation of life from one class
to another; any pretended transmutation here would be
simply fabulous, as much as to pretend that a rock was
changed into a tree.

' There can be no doubt,' says Professor Ryraer Jones,
'that the nervous system must be regarded as the very
essence of being of all creatures, with which their sensations,
volitions, and capability of action are inseparably connected ;
and such being tlie case it is a legitimate inference, that
the capacities and powers of the several tribes are in im-
mediate relation with the development and perfection of
this supreme part of organization, and their entire structure
nuist be in accordance with that of the nervous apparatus
which they possess. The nature of the limbs and the
external members, the existence or non-existence of certain
senses, the capability of locomotion, and the means of pro-
curing food, must be in strict correspondence with the
powers centred in the nervous masses of the body, or in
that arrangement of nervous particles which represents or
replaces them.'

^ Whicli consists of fishes, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The volume
of the brain is proportionally larger as the animal occupies a more
elevated scale in the rank of life.

ORGANIC DISTINCTIONS. 265

Now more than this need not be stated here, as our ob-
ject is only to press the consideration of organic distinc-
tions. The reader however will not forget that in the
Theory of Transmutation it is held that there has been a
gradual change from the lower forms up into the verte-
brated class ; indeed, without this supposition the Theory
would be as much at a stand-still, as we have seen it to be
at the starting-point, where Mr Darwin fairly acknow-
ledged that he could not account for the first Transform-
ations. In his Theory, however, creatures have been trans-
formed from the first spore of a sea-weed into the lowest
Protozoa, from the Protozoa to the Mollusca and crusta-
cean — and then, by some happy leap, into the vertebrated
animal. But to this we reply that an animal must either
possess the vertebral column, or be without it ; and that
if it has the vertebral column it has the brain, and the
whole nervous system in a new arrangement, and for higher
purposes of life. If therefore the transmutation has ever
taken place, it has been an immediate operation, that is, an
operation without any intermediate delay, it has not been
efiected in millions of ages by Natural Selection, but it has
been done at once. The vertebral column has been formed
for the occasion ; and this, in other words, is an act of
creation.

Now in this particular point Mr Darwin has already met
us, by acknowledging more than we ever could have ex-
pected from him, for he has told us that the common first
ancestor of all vertebrated animals* had many vertebrae.

* In one passage Mr Darwin has described our common prototype in a
way to suggest the idea of the great sea-serpent. * It may be inferred
that all vertebrate animals having true lungs have descended by ordinary
generation from an ancient prototype, of which toe know nothing^ furnished
with a floating apparatus or swim-bladder ' (210) ; this coupted with * the

266 ORGANIC DISTINCTIONS.

There was therefore no violation of the distinction of
organization laid down by nature in this case; the first
vertebrated animal did not pass by slow degrees from the
lower form of life into the higher, but was made or created
the first ancestor of all vertebrated animals that have ever
since existed.

The Transmutationists having made this concession
must abide by the consequences.

The lacteal provision for the nurture of their young ex-
hibited in the mammalia is a broad mark of distinction
within the section of vertebrated animals. The reptiles are
thus widely separated from the mammiferous animal-
say a crocodile from a sow ; and the whale, which suckles
its young, from all the fishes of the sea. This, in fact,
tells us a whale is not a fish. Earth, air, and water have
their mammiferous animals ; in the air we find them among
the bats, and on the earth we see them everywhere. This
provision is a physical and even moral advance in ani-
mated nature, for amongst the animals thus furnished man
himself takes his place ; and wherever the mother's breast
is, there is there a strong parental aficction for the off-
spring.

The fishes and the reptiles* abandon their eggs and
leave to nature their future destiny ; the whale is passion-
ately attached to its young, and will brave every danger

many vertebrae ' of the great prototype brings our venerable sire into close
approximation with the sea-serpent. If this disputed creature should bo
caught some day, we may live to see the great prototype's skeleton in the
British Museum.

♦ * There are in the reptilia both viviparous and oviparous species, bat
the foetus in the former has no attachment to the womb, and the eggs in
the latter are hatclied by extraneous warmth ; the young, after exclusion,
receive no parental care or tuition in any species of the class.' — Owen.
m

ORGANIC DISTINCTIONS. 267

for their protection. In the manifestation of this passion
we see something that deeply interests us, we begin to feel
that there is some communion between us and animals.
The animal whose breasts bind it with ties of aflFection to
its little ones, is, in a point that touches us nearly, very
like ourselves.

Amongst select classes of the vertebrated animals the
mother is supplied with milk, but amongst animals of a
widely different character the parental affection is, never-
theless, elicited in strength, as amongst the birds and
some of the insects. The structure of these creatures does
not admit the foetal growth of the young and the cor-
responding secretion of milk ; but by other ordinations of
nature the young animals whose early existence requires
aid and protection, find it in the affection of their parent,
for if Nature does not herself nurture and educate the
progeny, she arranges* that the parent animal shall ad-
minister to all the needs of the helpless offspring.

Now amongst the mammalia this great distinction is an
obstacle to transition from the other vertebrated animals,
obviously arranged by general plan and design. That an
animal without milk and without care for its offspring,

^ This is more markedly shown to us in the habits of the ostrich. The
youug birds hatched in the torrid zone of Africa are left to take care of
themselyes, as the heat is sufficient for their growth, and they can find
their own food ; but towards the Cape, where the climate is less warm, the
mother ostrich watches over her young with the greatest care, and attends
to their wants. * Aussitot que les jeunes autruches sent ^closes, elles sont
en ctat de marcher, et meme de courir et de chercher leur nourriture ; en
sorte que dans les zones torrides, ou elles trouvent le degr6 de chaleur qui
leur convient, et la nourriture qui leur est propre, elles sont emancipees
en naissant, et sont abandonnces de leur mere, dont les soins leur sont
inutiles : mais dans les pays moins chauds, par exemple, au Cap do bonne
esperance, la mere veillo a sos petits tant que ses secours leur sont n^-
cessaires, et partout les soins sont proportionn6s aux besoins.' — Buffbn.

^f»8 OltGANIC DISTINCTIONS.

should arguire milk and be attached to its young, is as im-
jioasihlc as to change the structure of its heart, or to alter
the convolutions or proportians of the brain.

Thr general orc^anic distinctions to be observed in the
vcnx^himcd animals cannot be better expressed than in
thr words of Ouvicr : —

' VcTtohratcd animak ofier four grand subdivisions or
da^cs riaractejizad by the sort or the force of their move-
nifaiii^, T^hich thcnisc-lves depend on the quantity of their
TcspiratitflQ — oltserxing always that it is from respiration
ihm lie muscular fibres derive the energy of their irrita-
bilitx,

'The quantity of respiration depends on two factors:
tbe fii^t i> tbe relative quantity of the blood which in any
ome inst^an is presejited to the oi^n of respiration ; the
j^cxvod is the n^laiive quantity of oxygen which enters into
the i^ou)jxisition of the cirrulating'fluid.

' The quantity of blood which is respired depends on
U>o ii:N}v^5ouon of the or^nns of rei^piratiou and of those of
ciivul.itxMi,

• The or^rans of oiivulation mav be double, so that all
the bkxxl which arrives from the various parts by the
\eins should be oblii^xl to ^o for circulation in the orfjan
of respinalion Wfore it returns to the parts by the arteries ;
or they may he simple, so that one j>ortion only of the blood
which comes from the body should be obliged to pass by
the organ of respiration, whilst the rest returns to the body
without having gone for respiration.

•This last case is that of reptiles. Their quantity of
n»spiration, and all the qualities which depend on it, vary
according to the proportion of the blood which is sent to
the heart at each pulsation.

ORGANIC DISTINCTIONS. 2G9

* Fishes have a double circulation, but their organ of
respiration is formed for the medium of water, and their
blood is not acted on except by the portion of oxygen dis-
solved or mixed in the water, so that the quantity of their
respiration is, perhaps, still less than that of reptiles.

' In the mammifers, the circulation is double, and the
respiration, which is that of the air, is simple — that is to
say, it is efiFected by the lungs alone. Their quantity of
respiration, then, is superior to that of reptiles, on account
of the form of their organ of circulation ; and superior to
that of fishes, on account of the nature of the element
which surrounds them.

* But the quantity of the respiration of birds is superior,
again, to that of quadrupeds, because they not only have a
double circulation, and respire the air ;* but, again, because
their respiration is by many other cavities besides the lungs,
as the air penetrates through all their body, and bathes the
branches of the aorta, or the artery of the body, as well as
those of the pulmonary artery.

' From all this result four sorts of movements to which
the four classes of vertebrated animals arc more particularly
destinated.

* The quadrupeds, with whom the quantity of respiration
is moderate, are generally made for walking or running
when they put forth their strength.

* The birds, with whom the respiration is greater, have
vigour of muscles and lightness necessary for flight.

* The reptiles, whose respiration is weaker, are condemned
to creep, and many of them pass a portion of their lives in
a sort of torpor.

* That is, birda have a double advantage of respiration by the many
cavities of their body filled with air, as well as their doable circulation
which they have in common with the mammifers.

270 ORGANIC DISTINCTIONS,

* And, lastly, the fishes in order to execute their move-
ments have to be sustained in a liquid of almost the same
specific weight as themselves.

' All the circumstances of organization proper to each of
the four classes, and especially those which concern move-
ment and the exterior sensations, are in necessary relation
with those essential characters (of circulation and respira-
tion).*

' Nevertheless the mamraifers have peculiar characters in
their viviparous production of their young, in the manner
by which the foetus is nourished in the womb, by means
of the placenta, and by the teats with which they nourish
their young.

' On the contrary, all the other classes are oviparous ; and
if we compare them with the first class (quadrupeds), we
find in them numerous resemblances, which reveal a special
plan of organization for them, in the grand general plan
of all the vertebrated animals.'

This analysis of the various categories of the vertebrated
classes is stated in the concentrated form of general prin-
ciples, but in a more extended explanation it is observed
that the animals which respire immediately and have a
double circulation, and in which none of the venous blood
can return to the various parts until after respiration, that

* *Le8 quadrupeds, ou la qoantite de respiration est moderee, sont
generalement faits pour marcher et courir en d^veloppant de la force ; les
oiseaux, oil elle est plus grande, ont la vigueur de muscles et la legeretc
nccessaires pour le vol ; les reptiles, oh elle est plus faible, sont condamnes
a ramper, et plusieurs d'eotre eux passent une partie de leur vie dans one
sorte de torpeur : les poissons enfin ont besoin, pour execnter leurs mouve-
racnts, d'etre soutenus dans un liquido spccifiquement presque anssi pcsant
qu'eux.

* Toutes les circonstances d'organisation propres k chacuno de ce« quatre
classes, et nommement cclles qui concement le mouvement et les sensatioos
exterieures, sont en rapport necessaire avec ccs caracteres esscntiels.*

OBGANIC DISTINCTIONS. 271

is to say, birds and mammalia not only always live in the
air and move in it with greater force than the other red-
blooded animals, but each of those classes enjoys the faculty
of motion precisely in a degree corresponding to its quantity
of respiration.

Birds which are always in the air are equally impreg-
nated with that element both internally and externally.
The cellular part of their lungs is not only very consider-
able, but these organs have^ sacs and appendices which
are prolonged throughout the body.

Birds therefore consume within a given time a much
greater quantity of air, in proportion to their bulk, than
quadrupeds. It is owing to this circumstance that their
fibres have an instantaneous force so very great, and which
renders their flesh capable of becoming the moving power
in machines which require actions so violent as to sustain
them in the air by the simple vibration of their wings.

With respect to the force of their motion and quantity
of respiration, the mammiferous animals seem to hold a
middle place between birds and reptiles^ which form the
opposite extreme. With these, respiration appears to be
only an accessory circumstance : they may dispense with
it at pleasure. Their pulmonary vessels are merely branches
of the great trunk. Their organs of motion reduce them
to remain on the earth in obscure and close places, often
amidst foul air; and their instinct frequently prompts
them to shut themselves up in cavities in which the air
cannot be renewed, or to bury themselves under water
during a good portion of the year. Their motion is very
slow, and they pass a great part of their life in complete
repose.

The circulation of fishes is indeed double, like that of

272 ORGANIC DISTINCTIONS.

warm-blooded animals ; but as it is air mixed with water
which acts on their blood, it is necessary that the little
activity of the element should be counterbalanced by the
prompt return of the blood into the pulmonary organ.
The velocity with which some of them swim must not mis-
lead us in an estimate of their muscular force ; for, as they
are placed in an element as heavy as themselves, no force
is requisite for their support.

In close connection with the respiration and circulation
of those various classes of animals is the peculiarity of the
blood. Reptiles and fishes are cold-blooded ; but in the
blood itself of various animals the form of the particles is
very various.

The globules of the blood of all mammalia that have been
examined are discs of a circular shape, and smaller than
in any other class of animal ; whilst in birds, fishes, and
reptiles they are of an elliptical shape.

Among the invertebrate animals the globules of the blood
are much less regular in their forms. Their surface is un-
even and tubcrculated like that of a raspberry ; their con-
tour is very variable, they change their figure with the
greatest facility, and the size, by comparison, is consider-
able.

The blood of reptiles presents particles remarkable for
the large relative size, and ' the size increases in the ratio
of the persistence of the branchial organs' (Owen). The
blood-discs of the Siren can be discerned by the naked
eye, and are very greatly larger than those in the human
blood.

The red particles of the amphibia are the largest known.
Those of a frog's blood being taken as a standand of com-

OEOANIC DISTINCTIONS, 273

parison, and observed under* the microscope side by side
with those of other animals, it is found that those of birds
are about one half the size of those of a frog ; that the red
particles of the salamander are not quite one-third larger
than those of a frog, and rather more elongated : the blood-
particles of the lizard, compared with the same bodies from
the frog, are about two-thirds the size ; and the circular
discs of human blood measure only one-fourth the long
diameter of the elliptical particles of the frog's blood, and
only one-twelfth the long diameter of the particles of the
Siren. The circular particles of the musk-deer are ex-
ceedingly small, surpassed twenty times at least in size by
those of the frog.

All this has been revealed to us by the microscope, and
has taught us that which never could have been suspected,
the systematic difference of the corpuscules of the blood,
perceptible in different classes of animals ; and has shown
that the difference is not regulated by the bulk of the
body, as it would be natural to conjecture, but rather in
the direction of an inverse proportion, so that in most
cases the larger animal has the smaller particle. In this
way we might almost say that the fable of the ox and the
frog is reversed, for if the frog could not w4th his utmost
efforts inflate himself to the size of the ox, the ox could as
little hope to equalize the minuter particles of his blood
with those of the frog.

The cause of this difference in size and shape of the
blood-particles will probably never be satisfactorily ex-
plained ; it is, how^ever, one of those fundamental distinc-
tions of original structure which establish dissociation with

• Muller*8 Pliy Biology.
18

274 ORGANIC DISTINCTIONS.

impassable obstruction ; different bloods arc diflferently
constructed, and cannot be injected into veins of different
animals without fatal consequences.

If the blood introduced into the veins of a living
animal differs merely in the size, not in the fonn of its
globules, a disturbance or derangement of the whole
economy, more or less remarkable, supervenes : the pulse
is increased in frequency, the temperature falls rapidly, the
alvine secretions become tinged with blood, and death
generally happens after the lapse of a few days. The effects
produced by the injection of blood having circular globules
into the veins of an animal the globules of whose blood are
elliptical, or vice versa, are still more remarkable ; death
then usually takes place amidst nervous symptoms of ex-
treme violence, and comparable, in their rapidity, to those
that follow the introduction of the most energetic poisons.*

The application of these facts as an answer to the Theory
of Transmutation is obvious, as the supposed change of
animals would have to encounter this obstacle, and to admit
into the veins of the transforming animal a stream of death
in parting with its own proper original stream of life. In
that Theory it is gravely suggested that the bird came out
of the reptile, pai-tly owing, it is to be presumed, to their
contemporaneous appearance in geological record, and partly
to some peculiarity of internal structure. We hear on good
authority that 'the crocodile is the connecting link between
Reptiles and Birds, and in almost every part of its body it
presents a type of structure almost intermediate between
the two. The stomach of this creature might, in fact, be
almost mistaken for the gizzard of a rapacious bird. The

♦ Milne Edwards, who refers to tlie experiinenta of Messrs Prevost anJ
Diiinas.

ORGANIC DISTINCTIONS. 275

scsopbagus terminates in a globular receptacle, the walls of
which are very muscular, and the muscular fibres radiate
from a central tendon precisely in the same manner as those
of a bird,'* &c. This is quite enough for a Transmuta-
tionist ; with this degree of similarity the next step to the
change of the reptile into the bird would be very easy. In
this school similitude, with sufficient time intervening, is the
same thing as metamorphose.

In a common-sense view of the subject such a transition
must appear, of any that could be suggested, the least pro-
bable : for, taking reptiles as we find them, and especially
the crocodile, we should, without the revelations of anatomy,
be unable to find in that animal any the most distant resem-
blance to a bird of prey, except in its rapacity and ferocity.
Comparative anatomy, however, detects many unsuspected
facts; but still, even with this evidence of comparative
anatomy, we should say, in the supposition of such a change
as this, that a cold-blooded animal had to be transformed
into one of the warmest temperature ; that a tripartite
heart had to be changed into one of four cavities ; that an
animal of the lowest respiration had to pass into a process
of the highest ; and to assume a blood of different-sized
particles, though such a change is, as we have seen, decreed
to be impossible by a law of Nature.

To these difficulties we should have to add the change of
the animal's nature in the view of character. The reptile
that leaves its progeny to chance, and is indifferent to its
existence, would have to assume a disposition characterized
by strong affection to the young brood, with a heart more
changed in a moral aspect than the other physical change
of the great pulsatory cavities of circulation.

* Jones, Animal Kingdom, 562.

276 OEOANIC DISTINCTIONS.

In addition to all these considerations there would be the
total change of the whole creature in its aspect, the use and
destination of its limbs, the wonderful remodelling* of the
limbs, its general habits, and all its relation to the external
world. Comparative anatomy, therefore, helps the Trans-
mutationists but little ; on the contrary, it seems to increase
their difficulties, by approximating animals in certain
points, and bringing them as it were together, as if to
make manifest the exceeding great difiference and strong
dissimilarity in general character and habit. It has done
this in the instance of the man and the ape, and in Mr
Darwin's favourite example, the horse and the tapir, and
here we have it again in the reptile and the bird.

In the mean while, in spite of these similarities of com-
parative anatomy, there are organic distinctions, as we have
seen, which interpose with a strong prohibition in the
scheme of gradual change ; and these distinctions are of

• * The bones of birds, especially those of flight, present the opposite ex-
treme of lightness; not but that the osseous tissue itself is more compact
than in most mammalia, but its quantity in any given bone is much less,
the most admirable economy being traceable throughout the skeleton of
birds in the advantageous arrangement of the weighty material for the
office it is destined to perform. Thus in the long bones, the cavities, ana-
logous to the medullary in mammals, are more extensive, and the solid
walls of the bone much thinner. A large aperture called i\iQ foramen jmen-
maticum^ near one or both ends of the bone, communicates with its inte-
rior, and an air-cell or prolongation of the lung is continued into and lines
the cavity of the bone, which is thus filled with rarefied air instead of mar-
ram. The extremities of the bone, instead of being occupied by a spongy
diploi', present a light open network, slender columns shooting across in
different directions from wall to wall, and these columns are likewise hol-
low. The vastly-expanded beak, with its hornlike process, in the Horn-
bill, forms one great air-cell, with thin bony parietes : and in this bird, in
the Swifts, and the Humming Birds, every bone of the skeleton, down to the
phalanges of the claws, is pneumatic' — Owen.

We cannot but admire the great ability, science, and skill exhibited
by Mr Darwin's * Sequence of events as observed by us,' in producing such
a structure, and the more so as it has been produced without object, aim,
or deKJgn. In Mr Darwin's theory the bones of a bird are a lucky hit, one
of the best throws in the game of chance ever recorded.

ORGANIC DISTINCTIONS. 277

greater weight in the scale of life than the anatomical
analogies.

Mr Darwin, who does not tell us from what antecedent
animal a bird was formed, seems to think that the only dif-
ficult point in the manufacturing of birds was making a
pair of ^'ings, just, we may presume, as Daedalus supposed,
when he fabricated wings for his ill-fated son : but every-
thing in the bird, if elaborated out of some other animal,
had to be changed,— many important points of its internal
structure, the circulation of its blood, its lungs, its respira-
tion, the foiTO of its bones, the texture of its bones, its
skeleton, its muscles, the arrangements and number of its
nerves, the mould and texture of its eye,* its mind and
its will; and all changed simultaneously, if ever such a
dream was realized as the mutating a wingless animal into
one that could soar into the air with plumed body and
wings.

* It might require a long succession of ages,' says Mr
Darwin, * to adapt an organism to some new and peculiar
line of life, for instance, to fly through the air, and conse-
quently the transitional forms would often long remain
confined to some one region : but when this adaptation
had once been effected, and a few species had thus ac-
quired a great advantage over other organisms, a com-
paratively short time would be necessary to produce many

• Cavier's description of the eye of the bird deserves attention : * L'oeil
des oiseaax est dispose de niani^re ^ distinguer egalement bicn les objets
de loin et de pros ; une membrane vasculcusc et plissc, qui se rend du
fond du globe au bord du cristallin, y contribue probablement en dc-
placant cette lentille. La face anterieure du globe est d'ailleurs renforcce
par nn cercle de pieces osseuses ; et, outre les deux paupieres ordinaires,
il J en a tonjours une troisi^me placee k Tangle interne, et qui, au moyeu
d*un appareil musculaire remarquable, peut couvrir le devant de Tceil
comme nn rideau. La cornde est trcs convexe, mais le cristallin est
plat, et le vitre petit.*

278 ORGANIC DISTINCTIONS.

divergent forms, which would be able to spread rapidly
and widely throughout the world' (328).

From this passage we learu a curious history of birds:
it required a long succession of ages to adapt the organisms
to this ' new and peculiar line of life ' — doubtless, very
bug — that is, it required the lapse of untold ages to make
the first bird ; the process was going on confined to some
one region on the face of the earth ; intermediate forms
between the first attempt and the last, amounting to an
enormous number of experiments, were coming into ex-
istence, and undergoing extermination, always, however,
in the direction of the true bird; and at last, after a hundred
or two hundred million of ages, more or less, a real bona
fide bird, cock and hen, came forth triumphant, out of
the slaughter of innumerable ancestors.

What sort of bird this might be we are not informed, it
might be an eagle or it might be a dove ; and perhaps the
dove was the more probable form, as the prey has to be
made before the bird of prey. At any rate * the new
and peculiar line of life ' was secured, and after that, the
process of bird-making went on with success, comparatively
in a short time ; nay, more than this, ' many divergent
forms spread rapidly,^

This comparatively short time and this rapidity are, in-
deed, violent invasions of the fundamental law of the
system, for Mr Darwin has repeatedly laid it down that
* Natural Selection always acts very slowly ^ (114) ; but in
this histor}' of birds there was much to account for, as the
feathered tribe is rich in orders, families, genera, species,
and sub-species, and to concede the usual measure of time
which the Theory requires, for each distinct species, would
be making too large a demand even on the milhons of

OBGANIC DISTINCTIONS, 279

ages with which this Theory has made us familiar. Thus
the process had to be hastened, for when ' the adaptation
had been once effected/ a facility of change hastened the
process of mutation, and the winged tribes found com-
paratively little difficulty in producing new orders and
families, as circumstances seemed to encourage the 'plastic
tendencies ' of their organizations.

But though Natural Selection was thus accelerating
matters for the emergency, the other principle, extermina-
tion, was by no means dormant, for we are informed that
* extinction has played an important part in defining and
widening the intervals between the several groups in each
class. We may thus account even for the distinctness of
whole classes from each other — -for instance, of birds from
all other vertebrate animals — by the belief that many un-
usual forms of life have been utterly lost, through which
the early progenitors of the birds were formerly connected
with the early progenitors of the other vertebrate classes *
(463).

Thus, by the process of ' believing ' as a substitute for
proof, we are to understand that such was the process.
Many * unusual forms' in the progress of bird-making
have been utterly lost: these forms must indeed have
been by myriads to account for the distinction at last
effected, when, ' in a long succession of ages,' the real bird
was at last produced, to say nothing of the countless ex-
periments lost in connecting the various orders and species
of birds. All these unusual forms, exterminated in the
Struggle for Life, have disappeared, and can nowhere be
found, and so it is that we see the bird separated from all
vertebrated animals by an apparently vast chasm, and all
the families of birds separated from one another. This

280 OBGANIC DISTINCTIONS,

presents an appearance to us of a design, as if birds had
been created as we see them — but this is an illusion,
simply owing to the loss of all the intermediate animals
of unusual form, which ' we are to believe ' would make
one unbroken cliain of connected organization, if only the
links could be discovered.

Such, then, is the history of the origin of birds accord-
ing to the doctrine of Transmutation ; whether it presents
to our apprehension a wiser, less improbable, and kss
miraculous contrivance than that which is usually under-
stood by creation, the reader must judge.

After such lucubrations as these it is a real pleasure to
turn to the instructions of one of Nature's most successfid
interpreters, the illustrious Cuvier. On the great subject
of Organic distinctions he has, in an admirable manner,
pointed out to us the intimate connection which exists be-
tween the whole organization of an atiimal audits destinies
in life. ' Every organized being/ says he, ' forms a whole,
an unique and perfect system, the parts of which mutually
correspond, and concur in the same definitive action by a
reciprocal reaction. A^one of these parts can cliange without
the whole clianging, and consequently each of them, separately
considered, points out and marks all the others. Thus, if
the intestines of an animal are so organized as only to
digest flesh, and that in a fresh state, it follows that its jaws
must be constructed to devour prey, its claws to seize and
tear it, its teeth to cut and divide it ; the whole structure
of the organs of motion such as to pursue and catch it ;
its i)erccptive organs to discern it at a distance : Nature
must even have placed in the brain the necessary instincts
to know how to conceal itself and lay snares for its victims.
That the jaw may be enabled to seize it nuist have a err-

OBGANIC DISTINCTIONS. 281

tain-sliaped prominence for the articulation, a certain rela-
tion between the position of the resisting power and that of
the strength employed with the fiJcrum ; a certain volume
in the temporal muscle, requiring an equivalent extent in
the hollow which receives it, and a certain conyexity of the
zygomatic arch under which it passes ; this zygomatic arch
must also possess a certain strength to give strength to the
masseter muscle.

' That an animal may carry off his prey a certain strength
is requisite in the muscles which raise the head; whence
results a determinate formation in the vertebrae or the mus-
cles attached, and in the occiput where they are inserted. •

* That the teeth may cut the flesh they must be sharp ;
and they must be more or less so according as they will have,
more or less exclusively, flesh to cut. Their roots should
be more solid as they have more and larger bones to break.
All these circumstances will, in like manner, influence the
development of those parts which serve to move the jaw.

* That the claws may seize the prey they must have a
certain mobility in the talons, a certain strength in the
nails, whence will result determinate formations in all the
claws, and the necessary distribution of muscles and ten-
dons : it will be necessary that the forearm have a certain
facility of turning, whence again will result determinate
formation in the bones which compose it ; but the bones of
the forearm articulating in the shoulder-bone cannot change
its structure without this latter also changes.

*In a word, the formation of the tooth bespeaks the
structure of the articulation of the jaw ; that of the scapula
indicates that of the claws ; just as the equation of a curve
involves all its properties ; and in taking each property
separately, as the basis of a particular equation, we should

282 'OBGANIC DISTINCTIONS,

find again both the ordinary equation and all the other
certain properties ; so, the claw, the scapula, the articula-
tion of the jaw, the thigh-bone, and all the other bones,
separately considered, require the certain tooth, or the
tooth requires them reciprocally ; and, beginning with any
one, he who possessed a knowledge of the laws of organic
economy would detect the whole animal.

'We see, for instance, very plainly, that hoofed animals
must all be herbivorous, since they have no means of seizing
on their prey. We see, also, that having no further use
for their forefeet than to support their bodies, they have no
occasion for so powerfully-framed a shoulder ; whence we
may account for the absence of the clavicle and acromion,

•

and the straightness of the scapula. Not having any occa-
sion to turn their foreleg, their radius will be solidly united
to their ulna, or, at least, articulated by a hinge-joint, and
not by a ball and socket, with the humenis. Their herba-
ceous diet will require teeth with a broad surface to cnish
seeds and herbs ; this breadth must be irregular, and for
this reason the enamel parts must alternate with the osseous
parts. This sort of surface compelling horizontal motion,
or the grinding of the food to pieces, the articulation of the
jaw cannot form a hinge so close as in carnivorous animals:
it must be flattened, and correspond with the facing of the
temporal bones, more or less flattened. This temporal
cavity will only contain a very small muscle, — will be small
and shallow.

' We have no difficulty, then, in understanding that an
animal is a comj)lete machine, with harmonies and corre-
spondent provisions in every part of its organization : that
the whole creature, in the integrity of its being, recognizes
its own character, and executes its own will bv the concur-

OBQANIC DISTINCTIONS. 283

rent aid and perfect agreement of every distinct portion of
its body : that there is nothing empirical in its structure,
nothing mutable or fluctuating in its ^system ; and that no
change, in the true meaning of change, could take place in
any of its parts without impairing the whole, which is per-
fect in the consentaneous perfection of all its members,
directed to one object and operating with one aim, to fulfil
the preordained destinies of the animal's life.'

Every animal that exists is, for the purposes of its exist-
ence, as perfect as it can be ; and is as far out of the
reach of ideal improvement, and ' beneficial changes in a
slight degree,' as the sun itself, whose light and heat sus-
tain the existence of every organic being.

CHAPTER XV.

THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN.

After these multiplied considerations of the Theory be-
fore us, we approach the concluding question which in-
volves the whole argument, is there a design in the existence
of plants and animals ? Have they been brought into being
for a special purpose according to a preconceived plan ? or
is their appearance the uninfluenced result of circum-
stances, and a natural sequence of events without any speci-
fic design or particular object ?

The Theory of course denies any idea of design, and that
too in precise words, as w^ell as in the general discussion ;
and, in this respect, whenever the question seems to inchne
towards the notion of creation, it is uniform in its state-
ments. Mr Darwin has carefully considered all the vulner,
able parts of his Theory in the presence of a creative design,
and has guarded them from that quarter where danger is
most apparent, to the best of his abilities. Nevertheless,
the Theory is not invulnerable, for as the heel of the infant
Achilles was covered by his mother's hand when she
plunged him in the waters of Lethe, so this Theory has
not, in every portion, been thoroughly imbued with Atheism,
as its parent has kept one little spot untouched — the

THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN, 285

breathing of life into the primordial spore — an exception
which leaves the whole theory open to a death-wound.

But though Mr Darwin, with this one exception, which
he apparently could not avoid, has been so watchful in
warding off creation ; he has without scruple admitted a
designing and contriving power of his own invention, which
he invests with the most marked attributes of the creator,
and in such large terms as he would certainly consider
superstitious and credulous if applied to the interposition
of a Divine Power. We have seen a good deal of this
already, we shall see more of it presently.

But truly he must be a courageous man who can con-
template all the forms of life in this our globe, all the
structure of animals and plants, all the habits of diflFerent
animals and the parts they sustain in Nature, and all the
vast variety of their tribes constituted to enjoy life in certain
special climates, removed from which they* could not live,

^ ' We must suppose that when the author of nature creates an animal
or a plant, all the possible circumstances in which its descendants are de-
stined to live are foreseen, and that an organization is conferred upon it
which will enable the species to perpetuate itself, and survive under all the
varying circumstances to which it must be inevitably exposed. Now the
range of variation of circumstances will differ essentially in almost every
case. Let us take, for example, any one of the most influential conditions
of existence, such as temperature. In some extensive districts near the
equator, the thermometer might never vary through several thousand
centuries, for more than 20** Fahrenheit ; so that if a plant or animal be
provided with an organization fitting it to endure such a range, it may
continue on the globe for that immense period, although every individual
might be liable at once to be cut off by the least possible excess of heat or
cold beyond the determinate degree. But if a species be placed in one of
the temperate zones, and have a constitution conferred on it capable of
supporting a similar range of temperature only, it will inevitably perish
before a single year has passed away.' — Principles of Geology, ii. p. 351,
3rd edition.

These sentiments it is to be presumed Sir Cliarles Lyell must now repu-
diate, under the influence of the Lamarckian system of which he has be-
come the advocate. If he is faithful to his new creed, the creator and
the plan of creation must of necessity be repudiated.

286 THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN.

and yet in the face of all this shall deliberately say there
has been no design here, and no superior intellect ordaining
what we see. He that says this has to believe that when
different forms of life answer to one another perfectly, it is
a mere accident; and that when certaia creatures have
special habits and characters with all their organization
corresponding with their habits and instincts, that it is a
mere accident, — that all the instincts of animals either as
private individuals or as members of a society are acci-
dental, — and that whatever has hitherto been noticed as a
plain proof of design, is on the contrary nothing but ' the
sequence of events as ascertained by us.' He has to be-
lieve that a spider was not made to catch insects, and that
the art of making its web was not imparted to it for that
purpose ; that no carnivorous animals, on land or in the
waters or in the air, were designed to keep down the re-
dundancy of those animals which constitute their prey ;
that certain birds and other animals were not made to live
in the trees ; that fishes were not designed for the water,
nor winged creatures to soar in the air ; that the various
modes of rearing the young of animals are accidental ; that
milk was not prepared for the mother's breast ; that insects
were not framed for any of the functions they perform, that
their extra-fcctal transformations are fortuitous and not
regulated by any plan ; that the products of the earth were
not intended to support animal life. In one word, that all
these things, if they be beneficial and answer useful pur-
poses, are the unintentional result of blind matter pushing
its way in the worid at random, without any definite ob-
ject, and after iuiunnerable and incalculable instances of
failure, at last hitting on the arrangement which has turned
out to be right.

THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN. 287

In vain is it that to the advocates of this system you
present the most striking instances of adaptation of parts
for a function, the most marvellous instances of instinct,
the most curious habits and contrivances of certain animals
kept up from time immemorial as the sacred traditions of
their race, the arts, the architecture, the expedients, the
inventions, the economies, the precautions of thousands of
creatures in their sphere of life. To all these examples the
answer is, ' True, this is a very curious result, and has the
appearance of a plan ; but it never was intended that by
any of these arrangements any particular object should be
secured. Natural Selection has indeed at last effected that
the most beneficial organization should, after innumerable
failures, be the characteristic of the animal that has sur^
vived, and has outlived the extermination of its predecess-
ors ; and because its organization suits its mode of life, it
is now an established member of the animal kingdom ; but
this is not a design — it is the mere sequence of events : and
there is nothing more wonderful in those phenomena which
are called the contrivances of Nature than in the fact that
water should freeze at a low temperature, or that sugar
should melt when thrown into water.'

Neither in this system can beauty either in colour or in
form, or in the execution of any intricate contrivance, be
admitted as any part of a plan of* Nature. If the landscape
is beautiful ; if the heavens are glorious to behold ; if all the
wealth of Nature's wardrobe shines in gorgeous show ; if
Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of the
lilies of the field ; if the animals are of surpassing beauty in

• It most be remombercd that Mr Darwin has said, * some naturalists
believe that very many structures have been created for beauty in the eyes
of man, or for luero variety. This doctrine^ if true, would be absolutely fatal
l<> my theory' (219).

288 THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN.

their forms, their colours, their clothing, and the grace of
their movements ; if the song of birds is sweet, and every
country sound charming to the observant mind ; none of
these varieties of the beautiful were intended to please or
to produce admiration ; they are an accident. We must
take them as we find them, but never confound a rigorous
sequence of events with a studied plan. We have seen
that the beauty of male birds is attributed to the coquetry
of the females, preferring the accidental distinction of a new
feather in certain males. These males, more favoured than
others of their sex, owing to the new feather in their
plumage, were selected partners in the breeding season ;
and so by degrees new feathers coming more and more
into favour, in thousands of ages, a bird with the splendid
plumage of the tropics was finally established.

This is the theory to account for beauty of plumage that
a great Physiologist has had* the courage to propound ;
and this is the theory which other Physiologists have been
able to digest ! to such miserable puerilities has the severe
and cautious study of Nature descended in this School.

It may cheer us for a moment after hearing such senti-
ments to listen to an opposite expression of thought sug-
gested by a contemplation of Nature.

' Flowers may be regarded not only as the last, but the

* ' I ace no gooil reason to doubt that female birds by selecting durin;^
tliousands of generations the most melodious or beautiful males, accorJihg
to their standard of beauty^ might produce a marked effect* (91).

It would appear therefore that the beauty of male birds is not accordiuj
to any real standard of beauty, nor is it the arrangement and painting ff
that master mind from which all beauty is derived, but is simply an ex-
pression of the feeling of the hens! We cannot be too thankful to the heus
for the taste they have tlius manifested ; we may, however, presume that
tlie result may he ac.'cepted as completely successful, as it is thus ^7rarr</ that
hens and not creation were tlie inventors. There can be do objection in
the Theory to praise the taste of a hen.

THE ABGUMENT OF DESIGN. 289

most elaborated organs of the vegetable system. Wliether
we contemplate the beauty of their forms, the splendour of
their colours, or the delicious fragrance they everywhere
breathe around us; or whether with a physiological eye
we survey the delicacy of their structure, and investigate
the peculiar functions they perform ; we cannot but feel the
greatest admiration of the skill with which, in a compass
so small, and by means apparently so simple, such a series
of actions, terminating in results so varied and important,
can be at once combined and regulated.'*

But if the difficulties in the denial of design in Nature is
great in these instances of external appearance, immeasurably
greater are they when we approach the profound teachings
of comparative anatomy, and consider, in the great though
imperfect light of modem discoveries, the structure of
the animal frame, the parts prepared for the animal's pecu-
liar life and habits, and those which relate to the circulation
of its blood, its respiration, nutrition, and reproduction.
We have seen something of this in the last chapter, and of
course many more chapters might be written on such a
theme without exhausting the subject. But whatever
anatomy reveals to us of the surprising provisions in tlie
animal frame, whatever is intricate and perfect in adapt-
ation, and whatever moreover is not yet understood in the
functions of all the parts is, in this system, to be attributed
solely to the Sequence of ascertained events: they are events
the result of time, and of matter working itself into certain
conditions ; mind and forethought have had no part what-
ever in planning and constructing them.

If we speak according to Mr Darwin's more serious in-

* Supplement, Encyclop»dia Britaunica, Article, * Vegetable PbyHi-
ology.

m^.

290 THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN.

terpretation of his meaning, then the fonnation of an eye
on optical principles is simply an event ; it is so because it
is so, but it never was designed to secure the faculty of
sight by an eye. If, however, we make use of his more
favourite language, and mount with him his hobby, then
Natural Selection made the first eye ; and this we shall pre-
sently see he describes as a fact in enthusiastic language.
In the same way Natural Selection constructed the first
stomach, the first intestines, the first biliary duct, the first
heart, and the veins and the arteries, and the whole appa-
ratus of respiration.

The curious part of this system is, that though its author
tells us he has such confidence in his metaphor, as to attri-
bute to its operation alone all the most admired contriv-
ances discoverable in Nature, yet he seems to feel no
difficulty whatever in attributing to Ignorance and Impo-
tence all that has hitherto been considered inseparable from
Wisdom and Power. In the question of transforming a
low grade of animal life into a higher, of improving its
organization, there is nothing to undertake the process that
has any intellect. Let us suppose the case of the promotion
of a toad, or a worm, in the scale of life, there is nothing
to begin the move but the animal's own body ; and if we
were to concede that a toad wished to improve his organiz-
ation, the creature could think of nothing better, nor make
the slightest move, we will not say, in the right direction,
but in any direction whatever towards a change. But the
transmutations nevertheless take place, the anatomical
structure is altered, and changes involving an intuitive
knowledge of all the profoundest secrets of Physiology, in
all its branches, arc duly effected when there is no intellect
at all employed in the change, nor any definite plan or ob-

THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN. 291

ject for which the change is made. Thus it comes out
that perfect Ignorance and perfect Helplessness produce
the wisest, the most complete, and the most wonderful ob-
jects in Nature. Give Inability, Ignorance, and Nothing-
ness only time enough, and they will be able to accomplish
anything. It is not wisdom and power that create won-
ders, but Ignorance and Inability. If anything is really
admirable in nature it has come to be so by blundering ;
you see at last the success, but you do not see the hundred
thousand or the million blunders by which the success has
been obtained. It is blundering and not wisdom that has
filled the world with wonders of art and beauty.

Now, that it is only a question of time for Non-Intellect
to do everything will be apparent in the following passage.
Mr Darwin first asks to be allowed to personify nature,
when he really means ' the natural preservation of varying
and favoured Individuals during the Struggle for Exist-
ence ' — ^in other words, Natural Selection : he then adds,
' How fleeting are the wishes and efforts of man, how short
is his time! and consequently how poor will be his pro-
ducts compared with those accumulated by nature (Natural
Selection) during whole geological periods. Can we won-
der, then, that Yitt productions should be far truer in charac-
ter than man's productions, that they should be infinitely
better adapted to the more complex conditions of life, and
should plainly bear the stamp of far higher workmanship '
(88).

So then, only allow Non-Intellect sufficient geological
tioie, and great will be the result ! We must here, how-
ever, observe how systematically Mr Dar^vin deceives him-
self by metaphorical language ; he tells us that ' her works
bear the stamp of a far higher workmanship ' — when we

292 THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN.

inquire what this precisely means, we find that Nature
is Natural Selection ; and then we discover that Natural
Selection is the Sequence of Events ! and thus events are
turned into workmen, and results into artificers !

As, however, there is another light in which the work-
manship can be contemplated, the light which common
sense and right reason afiford, we will, in this other exhibi-
tion of it, see what effect can be produced by the report of
a faithful witness. Valentin, in the firet pages of his Text
Book of Human Physiology, makes the following excellent
remarks : —

' The capacities of self-presentation and propagation re-
cur in every kind of living being. As it was necessaiy
that the order of the organic world should maintain itself
without external and supplementary support — as it was
necessary that the individual should be able to accommo-
date itself to internal and external change, and presenc
the species in spite of the destruction of the individual—
both of these capacities were indispensably called for. At
the same time, they constitute the characteristic means of
distinguishing the organic creation from those contrivancei
which are the result of human handytvork,

' Every such apparatus requires a physical or chemical
stimulus — a food as we may call it — to maintain the activity
of its machinery, and thus bring about the intended efiect.
In this way the clock-weight conditionates the movement
of the clock, the steam that of the steam-engine, and the
combustion of its constituents the light of the candle-
wick. The hke phenomenon recurs in living creatures.
Their manifestations of force are always connected with a
change of molecular proportion, or with a chemical inter-

THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN. 293

change of substance. In this way particular combinations
are produced, which leave the body, and which must there-
fore be replaced by others, in order that it may subsist.

* But the food thus needed not merely serves to com-
pensate these unavoidable losses, its surplus is frequently
applied to the formation of new organs, to the perfection
of old ones, and to the restoration of lost parts. And
while in tJte case of our artificial contrivances, all these
changes can only be induced through the instrumentality
of the mind and hand of a human being foreign to the
machine, organic bodies accomplish them by their own
inherent forces, so that ths living being fulfils at one and
the same time the different functions of machine, attend-
ant, and architect.

*The organic being which possesses the ca-
pacity of applying the food it receives, not only to the
nutrition of existing parts, but also to the construction of
new organs, and which can defray unavoidable expenses or
necessary restorations from the already existing structures
of the body — presents an embryo as an additional product
of nutrition. This embryo includes a certain sum of parts,
which only require a particular food, in order that limb
should arrange itself on limb, after a definite plan, until a
new and independent being is created. But since the
parent organisms only attain the capacities necessary for
generation after a certain duration of life, the parents and
their progeny are separated by an interval of time, the
continual repetition of which secures the genera and
species.'

Here, then, indeed the superiority of the works of nature
is fully acknowledged, but they are spoken of as con-

294 THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN.

trivances, and as arranged after ' a definite plan/ implying
that a power superior to any which man can bring into
play ordained the original structure.

Thus, again, when the author is speaking of the com-
position of the skeleton, he says, ' The proper mixture of
cartilage with salts of lime, of compact with cancellated
tissue, of rounded with angular forms, of uniformly con-
tiguous segments with numerous elevations, depressions,
enlargements, and processes — all this results in making
the pieces of the skeleton hard levers, bases of support, and
protective textures, such as the artifice of man * could never
imitate' (24). And this, it appears to us, is the right way
of stating the case, not so as to bring down the Supreme
Intellect to a level with human skill, which is frequently
the course pursued by popular writers, but. to point out
rather how inadequately man can imitate the contrivances
obsciTable in nature. The small modicum of our highest
art and knowledge can scarcely be put in any degree of

* There is an excellent description of the wing of the bird in Professor
Phillip's * Life on the Earth,' which, however, is too long to give here.
The concluding sentences correspond with the general observations of
Valentin : —

*This is exactly the arrangement indicated by the experiments of en-
gineers, and the theories of mechanicians but no hnman band«

could make an apparatus embodying so perfectly the abstract truths of
mechanical science, nor could the human mind with the materials given
have predicted by any theory the arrangement which is found to be 6o
complete

*The scheme of feather, structure, and arrangement is altered in the tails
of birds to suit the very different mechanical purposes of that instru-
ment — altered in the construction of the individual feathers — in tijo
direction of their planes, in the resultant of their strength. Hence the
resemblance of the steering tails of the swift Falconidai, and HiniDdioes.
and Sternida3 — in contrast with the stiff prop of the Picidie, and the
almost extinction of the apparatus and suppression of the function in t!ie
acuminated tails of the Diving-birds. Every feather is altered when
the work is different ' (39).

THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN 295

comparison with the absolute science and supreme art
which have presided over the works of creation.

But in the Theory with which we have to deal, Absolute
Ignorance is the artificer, so that we may enunciate as the
fundamental principle of the whole system, that in order

TO MAKE A PERFECT AND BEAUTIFUL MACHINE IT IS NOT
REQUISITE TO KNOW HOW TO MAKE IT. This proposition

will be found, on a careful examination, to express in a
condensed form the essential purport of the Theory, and to
express in a few words all Mr Darwin's meaning ; who, by
a strange inversion of reasoning, seems to think Absolute
Ignorance fully qualified to take the place of Absolute
Wisdom in all the achievements of creative skill.

We, however, who do not accede to this fundamental
principle, will select amidst the myriad-designed pro-
ductions in Nature's vast storehouse one intimately con-
nected with the animal stnicture, which, in its numerous
complications and adaptations, argues antecedent know-
ledge, and a manifest intention to produce certain efiects
such as that prescience demanded. In the contrivances
for the circulation of the blood this is everywhere ap-
parent, and in considering all that has been brought into
play for effecting this function, we affirm that a profound
knowledge of the whole mystery of life, as far as it is at
present understood, and very far beyond, must have been
the foundation on which the whole proceeds, and that In-
tellect can only have been the originator of such a system.

Now, as the circulation, in various modifications, ex-
tends to almost the whole animal kingdom, though it is
seen in its highest arrangement in the class of mammalia,
the argument, if it can be established, will apply to the

206 THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN.

whole animal kingdom, and therefore will everywhere con-
fute the doctrine of Transmutation.

The circulation starts from the first principle that life
must be sustamed as a continually moving power — as a
vortex in which new materials must be unceasingly enter-
ing, and old and used ones incessantly departing. It sup-
poses the known requisite for organic existence to be an
unremitting change ; that every part of the animal frame
must be taking in new substance and giving out waste;
that parts unseen as well as those seen — the firmest as well
as the tenderest portions of the fabric, have need of renewal;
that the brain and the bones, the fat and the muscles, must
yield up the older particles to make way for others of a
more recent formation ; and that the stability of the whole
is to be secured by its constant renovation.

Let us suppose now that, anterior to the appearance of
any living animal, this method of existence had been pro-
posed as indispensable, and that, with this problem to sohe,
and inert matter to work on, without any further aid or
information, the solution had been left to human inffcnuitv
and powers of invention. Who could have grasped the pro-
blem, or who could have encountered this Sphinx, with her
incomprehensible enigma? But we need not suppose this
problem to have been proposed before the existence of
animal life, for it is but as yesterday that the general prin-
ciple has been understood. For ages wise men had been
pondering on the mystery of life without ascertaining the
machinery with which it is sustained ; so recondite are the
designs that prevail in Nature's works, and so deep the
wisdom that arranged them.

The method to secure a constant renovation of all parts
of the body has been by providing a fluid which shouhl

THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN. 297

continually be visiting every part of the frame, and convey-
ing in its progress the materials for the formation and nu-
trition of every part. For this three provisions are indis-
pensable : the source which is to sustain the fluid in its
requisite quantity; the proper quality of the fluid; and the
motive power which is to keep it in continual progress.
This fluid is the blood, supplied by the lymphatic and ab-
sorbent vessels, and some of the smaller veins communicat-
ing with the food taken into the body. The animal takes
nutriment into its stomach that it may live ; thus life de-
pends on the digestive apparatus treating the food received
in a peculiar manner, and after chylification, with other
intermediate processes, converting into blood the solids and
liquids that had been received for food.

This fluid — aptly called ' the stream of life,' having the
appearance to the naked eye of a homogeneous and uncom-
pounded liquid of a uniform brilliant colour — contains many
substances, detected, for the most part, by chemical analysis
of a modern date. We hear of water, albumen, fibrine,
fatty crystallizable matter, salt, soda, chloruret of potassium,
alkaline sub-carbonates, phosphate of lime, of magnesia, of
iron, peroxide of iron, &c., &c., carbonic acid gas, azote,
oxygen, &c. And, in addition to this list, it is believed by
eminent* physiologists, that several other substances may
yet be discovered. The albumen fiu-nishes the base of a
great number of tissues, fibrine is the constituent principle
of the muscles, the salts are found in the bones ; and so of
the other secretions requisite for different parts of the body

♦ * Cette complication tonte grande qa'elle peut nous paraitre, est en-
core au dessous de la rcalite, ct si nos moyens d'analyse ctaient plus par-
faites, on decouvrcrait dans le sang d'autres substances encore qui y
existent biencertainemcnt, maisno s^y trouvent qu'en quantites trop petites
pour quo le chcniiste puisso les saisir.* — Milne Edwards.

298 THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN.

the requisite materials, in minutest particles, are diffused
through the blood.

Now, thus far having advanced, we pause to observe that
a very complicated machine, such as the digestion exhibits,
was needed to keep up the supply of the blood ; that the
fluid destined to circulate in all parts of the body is an
elaborately compound substance ; that many materials, to
which we give artificial names, enter into its composition,
and that it would not be what it is, and therefore would not
answer for the purposes for which it is intended, unless the
internal apparatus of digestion, modification, and absorption
had been in proper place and order to elaborate its forma-
tion.

So far we have got to be quite sure that, to secure all
this, there must have pre-existed the highest degree of
knowledge to foresee and to arrange all things requisite for
the production of the blood, — a knowledge that by thou-
sands of years anticipated the discoveries of modem science,
and that has, in these arrangements, other intentions and
objects also in view, which are not yet fully understood by
the ablest physiologists, as is manifest by the various inter-
pretations which they propose.

The universally permeating liquid having been thus
provided, the next requisite was to secure its motion, by
some propelling power which could effectually drive the
stream through every 'part of the system, and keep up a
circle of movement which was never to relax. The recur-
rent flow, without any pouit of stoppage, was as indis|)ens-
able as the accurate composition and proper elements of the
moving stream itself.

To ensure all this a contrivance analogous to a forcing-
engine was placed in a central position of the body. This

THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN. 299

machine, the heart — the centre or chief agent of the func-
tion, drives the blood in the peripheric or centrifugal direc-
tion within special conduits, the arteries. It receives the
blood again by the apparatus of the veins, by means of
which the fluid returns with a centripetal course. Where
the arteries and the veins meet there is a fine net-work of
capillary vessels, forming a transitional structure between
the two kinds of conduits ; that is, between the arteries
that carry out the blood from the heart, and the veins which
convey it to the heart.

The heart is a hollow muscular organ, a sort of bag or
sack, divided into the left and right partition, which have
no direct communication with one another: there is a
strong wall of separation between them. Each of the par-
titions has an upper and lower chamber or cavity. The
upper chamber is called the auricle, the lower the ventricle.

In the floor between the upper and lower chamber there
is a valve for communication, which will allow the blood to
descend, but closes against any effort it may make to re-
ascend.

The valves, composed of fibrous membrane, are attached
at their lower extremities to the walls of the heart by little
tendinous cords, termed cordce tendinece, otherwise they
would flap through into the auricle, offering no resistance
to the rush of blood when, pressed by the contraction of
the lower chamber, it is urged through the tubes for its
proper course. The blood, therefore, is destined to enter
the ventricle, or lower chamber, from the auricle, or upper
chamber, but careful provision is made that it is not to re-
turn the way it came into the auricle, and this is by the
provision of the valves.

The auricle, then, in each partition of the heart receives

300 THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN.

the blood, and the ventricle sends it out. The upper
chamber receives, and the lower propels.

But this propulsion, on which indeed everything de-
pends, is effected by an alternate process of contraction
and dilation of the heart., independent of the will, and is
the power which urges the whole stream through the body.

The right auricle contracts and propels the blood into
the right ventricle through the valve (tricuspid valve)
which opens to receive it. At the same time the ventricle*
dilates to receive the blood forced into it.

Then, as soon as it has received the blood, the right
ventricle contracts and drives the blood through the
pulmonary conduit into the lungs, where it is to be
aerated by communication with the atmosphere introduced
into the lungs through the process of respiration.

The aerated blood, or revitalized blood, returns by the
four pulmonary veins to the left auricle, or upper chamber
of the left side of the heart : the auricle now contracts, and
urges the blood through its valve (the mitral valve) into
the ventricle below which dilates to receive it. Then flic
ventricle contracts, and by that contraction urges the
blood it has received through the great • aorta (a conduit
which enters into the ventricle) and sends it on its centri-
fugal course all through the body.

This contraction, as it is in fact the momentary squeezing
of the ventricle, would urge the blood up again into the
auricle from which it had descended, but the valve or

^ TIiiR, which is called dilation, is probably the return of the ventricle
to its normal state after contraction. It is a comparative dilution. These
two actions of contraction and dilation are called Systole and Diastole —
ovtrroXt), contractio, coarctatio, from ffutTTeWut, contraho — iiaaroXtf^ di-
visio.

THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN. 301

floodgate closes, and that danger is prevented. Thus the
blood has no other exit but through the aorta.

The action of the right side, then, of the heart is to send
the venous blood to the lungs to be aerated through
respiration ; the action of the left side is to drive the puri-
fied or aerated blood in its centrifugal course to visit the
general system.

Now how this action of the heart, its contraction and
dilation, is effected is a disputed point, and is not yet ex-
plained : here we have only to record the fact, and that it
is said that the heart contracts four thousand times in one
hour, in which time about fourteen thousand ounces of blood
pass through it ; and that in a life of eighty years' duration
it propels not less than half a million of tons through its
chambers ; and has in that time made not less than three
hundred milhon beats or contractions. If the propelling
action were to be arrested but a few moments the stream
of life would stand 'still, and move no more. On such
apparently perilous eventualities does life seem to de-
pend.

We have refen-ed to the sending out of the blood from
the right side of the heart to the lungs to be aerated. The
whole of the arterial blood, which, setting out from the left
side through the aorta, had served the purposes of nutri-
tion, and had performed all the offices required of it,
returns to the heart through the veins in an impure state,
and unfitted for the repair of tissues, and the support of
life, and highly charged with carbonic acid gas : it there-
fore has again to visit the heart by the right auricle, to
descend from it into the right ventricle, and by a con-
traction of the ventricle to be propelled to the lungs, and

302 THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN.

spread out in exceedingly minute vessels to a very ex-
tensive surface of air.

Thus, in every inspiration of the breath the pure at-
mosphere enters the lungs, and at every expiration the
vitiated air, charged with carbonic acid gas, escapes.

By this arrangement the venous blood receives the
oxygen from the air which exercises its purifying influence
on it, and thus as renewed, oxygenated, and arterial blood,
it returns back to the heart to be propelled through the
left auricle and left ventricle into the great aorta, on its
renewed journey of general nutrition.

Having thus traced the progress of the blood in iU
circuit, it may be requisite to point out the immense im-
portance of its visit to the lungs, by the wonderful pro-
vision that is there made for difi'using it in an extended
space. There are in the lungs labyrinths of cavities, which
are called lobules; one of these lobules is composed of
about 18,000 minutest cells, they comnmnicate freely
with one another, are bounded by a delicate transparent
web, and have lying between them thousands of exquisitely
slender capillary blood-vessels. It has been computed
that of these air-cells there are in the human lungs not less
than * six hundred millions, and Valentin estimates that
300 ounces of blood may pass through the lungs of a
strong man every minute. Life therefore is thus provided
for by a communication of large design with the at-
mosphere ; by contrivances, far beyond our thoughts, the
blood is thus continually bathed in air, and the vital pro-
perties which it possesses are thus comnumicated to the
whole body through the instrumentality which we have
been describing.

® Lawson'fl Popular Physiology, 71.

THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN. 303

Here, then, we take our stand, and say this is our life,
and the life, with modifications, of all animals. It is a plan
which pervades the animal kingdom; it is found on a
gigantic scale amidst the hugest of creatures in the depths
of ocean, in whose bodies the mighty heart, through an
aorta a foot in diameter, throws out from ten to fifteen
gallons of blood at each pulsation ; it is seen in the delicate
and aery forms of insects with distinct arterial and venous
currents flowing in a simple circle, and not fluctuating from
side to side as in the higher forms, but impelled forwards
by the dorsal current towards the head, and returning in
the opposite direction through the body, to enter again the
dorsal vessel. Neither is the circular current wanting in
the rotatoria, and other' minutest animals, as described by
Ehrenberg, though, with them, the flow is not dependent on
the action of a heart, but seems to be the result of ciliary
motion.

Thus in varied arrangements it extends through the
animal kingdom ; and that it is the result of a deep design,
arranged in profound wisdom, and executed with a skill
which we can only admire at a distance, who can doubt
that has not delivered up his understanding a holocaust to
the shrine of Transmutation ? That such a plan has re-
quired transcendant knowledge to imagine it, is as evident
as the result is wonderful. Something has already been
said about the scientific prescience requisite in the form-
ation of the blood ; as much might be said with reference
to the provisions for purifying the blood by communication
with the air. It is acknowledged on all hands that the
object of this communication is to seize on the oxygen, one
of the component parts of the air we breathe. Who could
have told us anything about oxygen the early part of last

304 THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN.

century ? who knew that there was such an element, or
who understood its action and qualities ? We would not,
indeed, urge that the author of the circulation of the blood
must have been acquainted with'oxygen, as that would be
elevating our lately-acquired knowledge on a very lofty
pedestal, for of oxygen itself, to which we have appended
a name of no good significance, we can give but a very
poor account, as we know not what it is, and can only
verify some of its actions ; but it is certain that the com-
ponent parts of the atmosphere have been understood in
their very essence before the experiment of animal life was
submitted to it, and it is more than probable that the
atmosphere has been compounded exactly as it is, for the
express purpose of sustaining animal life.

Well, then, we repeat that if there has been this elaborate
provision in the circulation to send the blood to the lungs,
and this elaborate provision in the lungs to enable the
blood to seize the oxygen in the air, it must have been
known before the beginning of animal life that the air had
this element in it, and the circulation of the blood was
devised according to that knowledge. This is not a
sequence of events, but life began tvith the event of circuUiiion
and could not have begun tvithout it ; wherever therefore wc
turn in the animal kingdom we find a certain proof of de-
sign, and in every living animal on the face of the earth wc
see a confutation of the Theory of the Transmutationists.

But again, we have to remember that the respiration of
fishes is arranged for the water and not for the air. The
circulation of the blood of these animals is carried on bv
the assistance of a heart of two cavities only, which re-
ceives the vitiated blood after it has coursed through the
system, and propels it through the branchiae, or gills, where

THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN, 305

it is exposed to the influence of the oxygen contained in
the surrounding medium. Now here, again, the know-
ledge of the constituent parts of water was a pre-requisite
for such an arrangement. It must have been known that
oxygen which is in the air, is in the water also ; otherwise
the branchiae of the fishes would not have been prepared
for extracting it.

In describing the heart the valves have been mentioned,
a design for a special object if ever there was one. This
design is carried out also in the hearts of fishes, and in
some instances* more markedly than in other animals. In
certain veins also of the human body there are valves all
opening towards the heart, which is the destined course of
the blood in the venous tubes, but closing immediately if
any force should urge the blood the reverse way. ' Those
veins which are exposed to the pressure of muscles have
pouch-like valves, which prevent the backward passage of
the blood towards the capillaries ; consequently any pres-
sure on the veins, instead of interrupting, favours the flow
of the blood to the heart. In the veins of parts protected
from external pressure the valves do not exist.' — Miiller.

Now any one finding these valves, and considering their
use, would as naturally conclude that they had been devised
for the purpose of allowing the blood to flow one way only,
as any of us would conclude on finding flood-gates in a
stream flowing to a tidal river, that they had been con-
trived to regulate the flow. To this common-sense view
of the valves of the veins we owe in a great measure the
discovery of the circulation of the blood.

♦ In the shark there are several rows of semilunar valves so disposed
as most efficiently to prevent the blood being drawn back into the ven-
tricle. Perhaps this may be a provision to resist the pressure of the enor-
mous gorging of that ravenous creature.

S06 THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN.

Mr Boyle in his Tract od Ymsl Causes giTes us this well-
known anecdote : —

' I remember that when I asked our famous Harver, in
the only discourse I had with him, which was but a litde
before he died, what were the Uiings that induced him to
think of a circulation of the blood, he answered me, that
when he took notice that the valves in the veins of many
parts of the body were so placed that they gave fipee passage
to the blood towards the heart, but opposed the passage of
the venal blood the contrary way, he was inclined to
imagine that so provident a cause as Nature had not placed
80 many valves without design^ and no design seemed more
probable than that since the blood could not well, because
of the interposing valves, be sent by the veins to the limbs,
it should be sent through the arteries, and return through
the veins, whose valves did not oppose its course that way.'

We see, then, how Harvey came to those conclusions
which have made his name so celebrated. Had he been a
disciple of Mr Darwin's school he could not have reasoned
in this way, as in that school a design in the works of
Nature is inadmissible ; and we may add that the circula-
lion of the blood could never, by such reasoning, have been
discovered by Mr Darwin, unless indeed he had, for the
occasion, attributed the invention of the valves in the veins
to his Metaphor, as he has not scrupled to assign to it the
formation of the eye. This is, however, a renunciation of
the Theory, as it is the introduction of a design and an
artificer in a masquerade dress, for an emergency.

On all these considerations, then, Mr Darwin must either
admit that there was antecedent knowledge, by which the
structure of organized beings has been arranged in many
complex contrivances, or that in the formation of a perfect

THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN. 307

and beautiful machine it is not requisite to know how to
make it. There is no escape from one of these alterna-
tives. Mr Darwin must make his choice.

This subject, however, is not to be dismissed without ob-
serving that, as in the circulation of the blood the contrac-
tion of the heart is the primum mobile, on which everything
depends, the whole apparatus of circulation must have been
prepared with a reference to this main-spring of the ma-
chine. To have arranged arteries, veins, capillaries, auri-
cles, and ventricles, without this foreseen power to be exer-
cised by the heart, would have been only to construct a
dead image. Therefore there was a knowledge somewhere,
that the heart would, by contraction, continue to propel the
blood, as long as life lasts ; and upon this knowledge the
contrivance of circulation was set a-going. But how was
this known ? and who knew it ? For we are ignorant of
the cause of the contraction of the heart, and with all our
anxious conjectures on the subject, have not yet reached the
explanation of that which will, perhaps, for ever remain
unexplained.

But yet, somewhere the mystery was, and is, understood.
Did Natural Selection know the cause ? Can the 'Sequence
of Events, as ascertained by us,' favour us with an explana-
tion ? Can Mr Darwin himself, the father of Natural Se-
lection, help us in this difficulty ?

And thus, in thousands of instances, we find proofs of
knowledge which we cannot reach ; and in all these instances
we cannot doubt that Supreme Intellect has ordained and
disposed those concurrent circumstances which we admire
but cannot explain.

The proof of design has been argued here on a general
principle pervading animal life. There is another general

308 THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN.

principle as much involved in its origin which must now be
adduced.

The appearance of the sexes, that on which animal Ufe
depends, must for ever baffle the advocates of the Theory of
Transmutation.

Life, they assure us, began from a simple primordial
spore. New forms of life emanated from the spore, and, at
last, that which we can recognize as an animal springing
from the union of the sexes, came into being. Now we ask,
how was this formation of the two sexes accomplished?
Mr Darwin derides the idea of an unborn man, the first of
his race, but we ask him to account for the appearance of
the sexes in his system.

If two animals, male and female, qualified for the repro-
duction of their race, were produced by * the Sequence of
Events, as ascertained by us,' this must have been by design.
This is the general proposition ; it is impossible to deny it.

The male and the female must have been produced at
the same time ; there could have been no intervening time
between their production more than a very few years, and
if this took place in the case of some of the lower animals,
only a few days.

But if the male was produced before the female he would
have perished in the course of nature before reproduction
could have commenced ; or, vice versd, a similar catastrophe
would have taken place if the female appeared before the
male.

In either of these cases there would have been an end of
the sexes, and things would have returned to the state of
the primordial spore. Thus animal life would, in no in-
stance, have originated in the union of the sexes. But if
the two sexes had been produced simultaneously, which to

THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN, 309

secure perpetuity of race is necessary to suppose, then they
came on the scene for a purpose, for an object, by a design.
They were made for one another in that case — they were
created.

Moreover, the appearance of either male or female must
be a proof of positive design, for as there had been in the
Theory another form of life without the sexes, this change
could not have been without an object.

The male is made for the female, and the female for the
male. This cannot be disputed : but yet if they are indeed
made for one another the Theory is at end !

Observe, moreover, that though the male and female are
Avidely dissimilar in that which distinguishes them, they
are yet perfectly adapted and designed for one another, and
their union perpetuates their race, by the production of
new animals in all respects similar to their parents.

In this union of male and female, a vast number of pro-
visions are involved in complicated design, and if any one
of them' failed, all would fail — and there would be no per-
petuation of the race.

Therefore it is certain that all this was provided for
when the first male and female came into being.

Natural Selection introduced here would be more than
usually senseless jargon, for it is not a question of an in-
dividual acquiring a beneficial modification in a million of
ages — elaborating a wing, or working out a tail, — but the
absolute necessity for two individuals appearing at the
same time, perfectly adapted and prepared for one another.
In this preparation there was intelligence presiding over a
plan, and a plan of that sort that its great result, the re-
production of a germ of life, is well described as ' the mys-
tery of mysteries ' (Cuvier).

310 THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN.

Now in this question there is another circumstance to be
considered, another mystery to be accounted for, the pro-
pelling principle which pervades all animals, and which is
clearly a design to secure reproduction by an imperious
mandate of Nature. Animals were not to be left to their
choice in this matter, they were ordained to increase and
multiply ; and consequently a principle was interwoven in
their own structure, to manifest itself periodically, and so
secure the lasting traditions of all forms of life.

Now a general principle to the power of which myriads
of different species are compelled to submit argues a sove-
reign disposing mind. It tells so plainly of one Master,
that all the decrees ever issued by a king could never so
clearly prove his existence, his will, and his power, as this
universal mandate which all are obliged to obey shows the
authority from which it emanated.

In the great field of the designs of nature we have
selected two examples which refer to animal life in general,
but the numerous instances of particular contrivance which
at any turn may be found in creation, we pretermit : many
of these the reader will have seen well stated by able au-
thors, and any of those examples, if carefully considered,
are sufficient for the purpose.

It must now be our task to show how Mr Darwin, who
closes the door against design in the hands of a Creator,
opens it very wide for the skill and wisdom of his Meta-
phor, and that in terms of such large expression as have
rarely been used, even by an inconsiderate writer, with re-
gard to a Divine Agent.

Many are the instances in which Mr Darwin speaks of
' beautiful contrivances,' though, of course, in his system
there is no Contriver, and therefore nothing can be contrived

THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN. 311

in it*; but the following passage, as entering fully into the
question, will best show his mode of treating the subject.

The subject which Mr Darwin is discussing is the forma-
tion of the eye. After a brief sketch of the various forms
of eyes, the first of which he affirms is a rudimentary eye,
* which can distinguish light from darkness, but nothing
else,* he says there is an advance towards perfection, as-
cending to converging lenses in the structure of compound
eyes, &c. : and so sums up with the usual formulary of a
creed, in which he is wont to dehver his doctrine — ' With
these facts, and bearing in mind how small the number of
living animab is in proportion to those which have become
extinct, / can see no very great difficulty in believing that
Natural Selection has converted the simple apparatus of an
optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and invested by
transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as per-
feet as possessed by any member of the Articulate Class
(Insects),* (207).

First let us observe here, that the number of extinct
animals referred to is an allusion to the supposed millions
of experiments of those intermediate animals exterminated
in the Struggle for Life, which are required in Mr Darwin's
system. We need not say that this is quietly assuming an
important point which remains to be proved. Next, it is
passed over ^uite as an ordinary circumstance demanding
no explanation or observation, that ' a simple rudimentary
eye * should have been the first formed, capable of ' distin-
guishing light from darkness, but nothing else.'

Now in this simple rudimentary eye there was first
needed an intention to make it. If we * start ' from that,
it was the first eye ; therefore it was made for the simple
animal that first had it. It was the first animal with an

312 THE ARGUMENT OF DESTGIT.

eye, or else we cannot * start ' from it. Well, then, art
animal there was that had the first eye. It could only
distinguish light from darkness, we are informed — ^whicli
is certainly more than Mr Darwin can prove, — but if as
much as that could be discerned by the eye, it was for a
definite object. It was to see light, either to seek it or to
avoid it. It was to see with. There must, therefore, have
been some nerves of sensation, and some of apprehension.
If the animal had a simple eye to see light, it certainly was
to understand that there was light. Here then, simple as
we may call this eye, was something which we are utterly
unable to imitate ; and as long as the world lasts never will
human skill be able to make a machine which shall be able
to discern between hght and darkness.

The very starting-point is, in principle, as wonderful as
the formation of the eagle's eye, to which Mr Darwin next
introduces us. Mr Darwin has not told us how Natural
Selection made the first simple eye. We ask him, was
that eye made for the object of discerning between light
and darkness ? Did Natural Selection make it for that
purpose ? These are questions not to be evaded. If Na-
tural Selection made the first eye for the purpose of seeing,
then Natural Selection is the Creator, neither more nor less.

Mr Darwin continues, * He who will go thus far ouffht
not to hesitate to go farther, and to admit that a structure
even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by
Natural Selection, although in this case he does not know-
any of the transitional grades. His reason ought to conquer
his imagination ; though I have felt the difficulty far too
keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in ex-
tending the principle of Natural Selection to sucii start-
ling LENGTHS.'

THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN. 313

Truly this is an amazing passage ; let us, however, ex-
amine it. If we have indeed gone thus far, we are in for
it, and ought not to hesitate to go farther. But we have
not gone so far, and have given our reasons for not accom-
panying Mr Darwin in his visionary progress. We do
not start with him, and therefore we do not advance with
him. But it seems that we ought to go the whole length,
and allow oiu* reason to conquer our imagination. So,
when we believe that an eye was made by creative skill, we
are following the illusions of imagination, and when we be-
lieve that the sequence of events made an eagle's eye it is
allowing our reason to get the victory ! Surely a more
curious metastasis of terms was never yet met with. Does
Mr Darwin really believe as he here expresses himself?
We doubt it. The confession, however, of his keenly
feeling the difficulties of such preposterous excesses of
speculation is quite aflfecting — it tells us plainly enough
that a great mind, though voluntarily surrendered to a
false system, occasionally wakens to the sense of its situa-
tion, occasionally perceives its captivity, and when com-
pelled by the laws of logic to feel the weight of the ab-
surdities to which it is chained, is amazed that it ever can
have gone to such startling lenf/ths, and therefore does not
wonder that others should hesitate to plunge into a similar
position.'

Mr Darwin, however, gives us the history of the eye :
* If we must compare the eye to an optical instrument, we
ought in imagination to take a thick layer of transparent
tissue, with spaces filled with fluid, and with a nerve
sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose every part of
this layer to be continually changing slowly in density so
as to separate into layers of different densities and thick-

314 THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN.

nesses, placed at different distances from each other, and
with surfaces of each layer slowly changing in form.
Farther, we may suppose thai there is a power, Natural Se-
lection, always intently watching each slight accidental
alteration in transparent layers; and carefully selecting
each alteration which, under varied circumstances, may in
any way, in any degree, tend to produce a distincter
image. We may suppose each new state of the instrument
to be multiplied by the million ; and each to be pr^erved
till a better be produced, and then the old ones to be
destroyed. In living bodies, variation will cause the slight
alterations, generally will multiply them almost infinitely,
and Natural Selection will pick out with unerring skill each
improvement. Let this process go on for millions on
millions of years ; and during each year on millions of in-
dividuals of many kinds, and may we not believe that a
living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior
to one of glass as the works of the Creator are to those of
man?' (208).

This portentous statement, which, for its wildness, al-
most defies criticism, must, nevertheless, be sifted, that it
may be reduced to its real value, as it is the most precise
exposition of an act of auto-plastic creation with which Mr
Darwin has favoured us.

Mr Darwin commences with giving us a receipt for
making an eye : ' take a thick layer of transparent tissue,*
&c. But we ask why in this Theory should such a process
be commenced at all ? was there any intention to produce
an animal that could see ? and from what quarter were we
to take these thick layers of transparent tissue ? How did
they originate? and how came it that the materials for
eye-making were at hand, and in the right place ? These

THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN. 315

we are to take in imagination ; as, however, we were not
there when this process began, who was it that took and
manipulated the thick layers of transparent tissue? and
why were these tissues, filled with fluid, selected for the
occasion ? Mr Darwin here evidently presupposes a know-
ledge of the formation of the eye as a dioptric instrument,
with fluids of a denser medium to refract through lenses
rays of Kght in certain angles, but who knew this before
the first eye was made ? and where was the nerve to be
had that was sensitive to light? A nerve sensitive to
light ! this is as coolly demanded as if it were as easy to
make and to find it as a piece of pack-thread. It amounts
to this — 'take one of the senses, and put it imder a thick
layer of transparent tissue/

Then we are to suppose every part of the tissue to be
' continually changing,' — but how changing ? what was to
make it change ? and for what object or in what direction
should it change ?

If such a process were going on in a living animal that
could already see, its vision would be sadly disturbed— a
transition eye in a living creature would be truly dis-
astrous. However, the process went on, be it remembered,
without any definite object or intention. There was no
design to produce an eye. There happened to be a nerve
sensitive to light in the proper place in the head, and there
happened to be 'spaces filled with fluid' in the same
position, not put there for an object — and there acci-
dentally was a repetition of these accidents on each side of
the head, and so the process advanced ! But, in the mean
time, there was a power intently watching what was
going on. We need not say that this was the great God-
dess Natural Selection, who, floating on a lotus on the

31 (J THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN.

ocean of dreams for millions of billions of ages, was de-
termined to make an eye. She intently watched each
slight 'accidental' alteration in the transparent tissues,
and when one of these aggregation of layers and spaces
filled with fluid began to produce a distinct image on the
nerve sensitive to light, then she took advantage of it, by
forthwith exterminating all the animals that had not yet
acquired the power of observing an image so distinctly.
Whether this encouraged the sur\4vors must be left to
conjecture ; but the changes in the densities never ceased —
the 'accidental' changes — in millions of millions of in-
stances, every one of which changes was marked by the
infinite carnage of all that lagged behind in the art of see-
ing. And so in 'millions of millions' of ages, and with
slaughter of millions of millions of bunglers, everf/ f/ear, at
last the eagle's eye was brought to perfection, to the in-
finite credit of the vast abilities of the great Goddess.

Mr Darwin, who speaks as a true devotee in profound
admiration of ' the unerring skill ' of his Goddess, does not
however mean us to understand that she hei'self changed
anything in this process of eye-making, for it is not her
office to construct anything ; her sole attribute is to knock
on the head those that do not make use of the right thing.
Her ' unerring skill ' consisted in giving the coup-de- grace
in the right place. She watched the animals that could
see the best in however slight a degree : those she allowed
to live, till others arose that could see better ; but, in the
mean time, she unmercifully exterminated the poor creatures
that had not taken advantage of the latest improvements.

All this being supposed, * we may believe that a living
optical instrument was thus formed as superior to one
of glass as the works of the Creator are to those of man.'

THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN, 317

This last most startling sentence immediately suggests
the inquiry, why, after a narrative so strictly atheistic, and
so obviously invented to exclude the idea of creation, the
sacred name is here introduced ? What can it mean but
an irony, unless, peradventure, Natural Selection is to be
considered the Creator ? The expression is most inoppor-
tune and most incongruous ; it militates with all Mr Dar-
win's system, and it could not have been more out of place
than in the above passage. Let the learned gentleman
keep his own ground, which is very intelligible ; but as his
system is as far apart from Natural Theology as the east is
from the west, he must forego the usage of terms which
it is the main object of all his doctrine to render for ever
obsolete.

We cannot dismiss the above passage without obsen^ing
that the whole process of producing instruments of vision
for the animal world is described as a series of accidents,
* Natural Selection was intently watching each accidental

ALTERATION.'

It was therefore a fortuitous process. There was no
exercise of intellect aiming to bestow the gift of vision on
animals, nor was there any premeditated design to produce
an instrument of sight. Everything that we observe in the
formation of the eye was an accident, and the eye itself is a
series of accidents accumulated in millions of millions of
ages.

The arrangement of this camera obscura, which, instead
of a space filled with air, is entirely occupied by special
refractile substances, in three separate humours of different
densities — the black choroid of the internal shell, corre-
sponding to the darkened sides of the camera obscura,
and the retina on which the mirrored images arc portray-

318 THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN:

ed: the crystalline lens with its anterior and posterior
surfaces acting as different mirrors, and the whole arrwged
and devised for the purposes of refraction of light — the
same lens having more refractibility than the cornea and
the aqueous humour — ^its stratified structure of several
layers of different densities, or different refractibility, con-
stituting it a polyzonal* lens in which the refractive power
increases continually from the surface towards the nucleus ;
these and numerous other provisions — ^the lachrymal gland
to wash the eye, or the nictitatory gland in birds to sweep it
clean — the muscles that move the eye, and the nerves that
connect it with the brain, constituting it the chief informer
and monitor of the mind, — all these are * accidental alter-
ations ' which have been preserved for our benefit by ex-
termination. No comment is needed on all this, we
leave it with the reader that he may draw his own con-
clusions.

In the mean time, all this will confirm that which we
have already said of the fundamental principle of the sys-
tem — that in order to make a perfect and beautiful machine^
it is 720 1 requisite to know how to make it. The account
which Mr Darwin has given us of the origin of the eye
proves this abundantly. We now understand his creative
mystery : it is a Trimurti of three principles, Accident,
Absolute Ignorance, and Extermination, constituting the
creative quorum of the school of Transmutation. These
are the Bramah, Vishnu, and Sevah of the system. Ex-

® * The true object of the polyzonal structure of the lens can hardly he
explained as a mere increase of the index of refraction ; for nature might
easily have attained this purpose in a much simpler way. On the coo*
trory, it is far more probable that the chief purpose of this peculiar ar-
rangement is to secure certain collateral advantages which are revealed by
optical considerations. And especially Ihe amount of splterical aberration
18 thus diminished.' — Valentin (444).

THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN. 319

termination is the Sevah, and the multiplied millions of
ages are the great periods of its Sh asters.

That the first manifestation of a living instrument for
sight was in an animal of the lowest form, and that the
first eye that made its appearance was of the simplest pos-
sible construction, enabling it ' merely to distinguish light
from darkness/ is indeed a statement such as this Theory
demands, which is based on the principle of progressional
development ; but the testimony of palaeontology authen-
ticates no such statement; on the contrary, there is abund-
ant evidence that perfect eyes of a complex nature existed
in creatures of the earliest date, nor can we doubt that each
animal came into being at once with its power of vision
precisely adapted for the line of life assigned to it. Some
visual organs therefore would be of a simpler structure than
others, but in the very dawn of life there were organisms
which required a large power of vision, and everything re-
quisite to meet that need was abundantly provided. Of
the Trilobite we have already spoken ; it was a crustacean
that existed in the early Silurian period, and the structure
of that animal's eye, owing to the elaborate contrivances
which distinguished it, has much attracted the notice of
geologists.

Let us take Professor Ansted's statement. * The form
of the eye of the trilobite is generally that of the frustrum
of a cone, incomplete on the side which is directly opposite
to the corresponding part of the other eye. In this way
the exterior of each ranges round three-fourths of a circle,
and is made up of a number of distinct spherical lenses,
fixed in separate compartments on the surface of the
cornea. The form of the cornea is such that the animal is
enabled to see distinctly in all directions horizontally.

320 THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN.

The species of Trilobite, called Asaphus caudatiis, is ad-
mirably adapted in this way for extended and perfect
vision ; each eye containing not less than four hundred
spherical lenses. This species is found most abundantly
in the upper beds of the Silurian series, and is one of those
which we believe to have been amongst the earliest of
created beings' (Ansted's Geology, i. 130).

Of the Trilobite family Professor Owen says that it is
entirely confined to the Palaeozoic age, and of the fifty
genera into which it has been grouped forty -six are Silurian,
and thirteen Lower Silurian. It therefore goes back to the
geological commencement. He also says that of this
family the Asaphus Caudatus has 400 facets to each eye ;
and in the great Asaphus Tyrannus each is computed to
have 6000. *The exterior of each eye, like a circular
bastion, ranges nearly round three-fourths of a circle, each
commanding so much of the horizon, that where the distant
vision of one eye ceases that of the other begins, so that in
the horizontal direction (the only direction required by an
animal living in the bottom of the water) the combined
range of both eyes was panoramic. Thus we find in these
animals an optical instrument of most curious construction
adapted to produce vision of a particular kind, created in
the fulness of i^erfection, and fitted for the uses and condi-
tions of the class of creatures to which this kind of eve
ever has been and is still appropriate.' — Buckland, quoted
by Ansted.

Here, then, we have in the earliest page of this earth's
history an animal, amongst the very first that can be
traced, appearing with an optical instrument of elaborate
construction, ' as perfect as possessed by any of the articu-
late class/ to use Mr Darwin's own words.

THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN. 321

This, in all ordinary reasoning, would be driving his
Theory up to a wall, and there annihilating it ; for as Mr
Darwin has required his millions of miUions of ages, and
millions of millions of acts of extermination, to produce a
perfect eye, and we know not how many hundreds of
millions to produce any eye at all ; we have in this in-
stance of the Trilobite confronted him with a perfect com-
plex eye appearing at the very beginning of things : but
the fox, not thus to be caught, will take cover in the Pre-
Silurian world, and having escaped into that realm of mists,
will conceal itself behind billions of billions of great pe-
riods, and innumerable destructions, before the Trilobite's
eye was brought to perfection.

Mr Darwin's Theory, when pressed hard, can always
glide away where pursuit is impossible ; and as indeed the
pursuit would not be that of truth and science, but of
fiction and illusions, we leave the Theory in its appropriate
home.

But we have to produce still further proof that Mr Dar-
win largely admits design for the furtherance of his Theory,
though he professes to discard it. Take the following
passage : ^ In the case of a gigantic tree covered with in-
numerable flowers, it may be objected that pollen could
seldom be carried from tree to tree, and at most only from
flower to flower on the same tree, and that flowers on the
same tree can be considered as distinct individuals only in
a limited sense. I believe this objection to be valid, but
Mature* has largely provided against it hy giving to trees

• Again, * How, then, does Nature act ? she has endowed these plants
with sensitiveness, and with the remarkable power of forcibly ejecting
their pollinia to a distance.* — Orchids, 212.

* Hence it would appear as if Nature were so economical as to save even
superfluous elasticity.* — Id. 66.

322 THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN.

a strong tendency to bear flowers with separated sexes.
When the sexes are separated, although the male and
female flowers may be produced on the same tree, we can
see that pollen must be regularly carried from flower to
flower, and this will give a better chance of pollen being
occasionally carried from tree to tree' (105).

These observations are to estabUsh a point which need
not be contested, that occasional intercrossing with dis-
tinct individuals tends to the vigour and fertility of all
organized beings. How Mr Darwin meets this in the
case of great trees with innumerable flowers we see, but
the main point to observe is that this provision for inter-
crossing is by a premeditated arrangement of Nature. —
* Nature has largely provided ' — this of coui-se means Na-
tural Selection ; but whatever it might be, we find, ac-
cording to this statem^it, that there is a large provision to
secure the intercrossing by giving to trees a tendency to
bear flowers with separate sexes.

Had we said as much as this of a design of creative
wisdom there can be little doubt how it would have been
received by the Transmutationists, but when the manifest
intent of this ' provision ' is atti'ibuted to that which is un-
dei-stood not to be creation, it passes as advanced philoso-
phy. This, however, is certain, that if anything of this
sort has really taken place, if there has been a large pro-
vision for a certain object, by giving certain ti-ees this
peculiarity, there must have been an Intellect to provide
and a Power to give ; and if so, the fact would be fatal to
the Theory.

Again we hear it stated still stronger : * In many cases
there are special contrivances which effectually prevent the

THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN, 323

stigma receiving pollen from its own flower; for instance,
in Lobelia fulgens,* iliere is really a beautiful and elaborate
contrivance by which all the infinitely numerous pollen-
granules are swept out of the conjoined anthers of each
flower, before the stigma of that individual flower is ready
to receive them ' (103).

This * contrivance * is to prevent self-fertilization, and to
necessitate crossing with another plant. And the con-
trivance is * beautiful and elaborate ;' nevertheless, in this
system there is no design and nothing that can contrive.
A system that has to be upheld by such flagrant contra-
dictions as these must indeed be tottering to its fall.

But a still more curious statement is contained in the
following passage : * The tubes of the corollas of the com-
mon red and incarnate clovers do not, on a hasty glance,
appear to differ in length ; yet the hive-bee can easily suck
the nectar out of the incarnate clover, but not out of the
common red clover, which is visited by humble-bees alone,
so that whole fields of the red clover offer in vain an

abundant supply of precious nectar to the hive-bees

if humble-bees were to become rare in any country, it
might be a great advantage to the red clover to have a
shorter or more deeply divided tube in its corolla, so that

* Compare with this, passages in the 'Fertilization of Orchids* : —

* To save this waste and exhaustion special and admirable contrivances
were necessary for safely placing the pollcn-masses on the stigma — and
thus we can partially understand why Orchids have been made more highly
endowed in this respect than other plants * (356).

* The simple fact that some MalaxesB have only a single pollen-mass
necessitates that extraordinary pains should have been taken in Uieir fertHiza-
Hon, otherwise the plants would have been barren * (Id.).

It is truly marvellous that with such thoughts and such language Mr
Darwin can have persuaded himself that blind matter, without an agent,
can have executed these * admirable contrivances.*

ZU THE ARGUMENT OF DESiGX.

the hive-bee should viisit its flowers. Urns I can under-
stand how a flower and a bee miyU Amtly Itcome, dth^
simultaneouslv, or one nSier another, modijM amd adaptid
in the mont perfect mamner to eaeh oHner, bjr the cc»idDiial
preservation of individuals presenting mutual and slightly
favourable deviations (^structure' (100).

One would think that this passage must, evoi to its
author^ appear a reductio ad absurdmm of the system. Red
clover finding itself in a state of hopeless celibacv, owing
to the absence of humble-bees, begins slightlv modifying
its structure to meet a prospective slight modification of
the structure of the hive-bee. The hive-bee, with great
good nature, begins to alter its own oiganization in order to
meet the inclinations of the red clover ; and thus bv this
Himultaneous process of slow modification on the part of
the flower and the insect, they become ' perfectly modified
and adapted to one another/ A profitable arrangement
to both parties, as the bee gets the honey, and the red
clover fertility!' But this of course is not accomplished
without the usual slaughter on both sides, for it is by the
'continual preservation of individuals presenting mutual
and slightly favourable deviations of structure,' that is,
Koinc millions of races of bees, and some millions of crops
of iniproving red clover, are continually undergoing ex-
teniiiiuition, till at the end of a million or more of years
red clover and hivc-bces arc perfectly adapted to one
another.

One cannot but admire, in this picture, the spirit of
Hclf-sacrilice in the hive-bees, for as they get on ver}' well
with the present arrangement, and have done since the be-
ginning of things, without the red clover, one can see no

THE ARGUMENT OF DEISIGN. 325

reason why they should give themselves up to extermina-
tion for a million of years, to obtain that which they do
not want. It is, moreover, to be remembered that the
breed of improving bees must depend on the queen, the
sole mother of the hive. She, therefore, who never gathers
honey herself and never visits any flower, must have re-
solved to lay eggs, which shall produce insects kindly
intentioned to the red clover, &c., &c., &c.

And this is the system ' which is to banish the belief of
the creation of new organic beings, or of any great and
sudden modification of their structure ' (101).

These specimens of the mode of reasoning by which the
Theory is upheld will be sufficient, though there is no lack
of many similar statements if it were requisite to adduce
them. We have seen enough to convince us that the ar-
gument of design, which it is in many quarters now the
fashion to deride as puerile and obsolete, is largely used
where it is least of all admissible, in the dogmas of that
school which pretends to have mapped* out creation on an
atheistic plan ; and that the leaders of that school are con-
tinually talking of contrivancesf without a contriver, of
plans and adaptations without intellect to devise them, and
of beauty and skill in organized structures, though they
declare that premeditated beauty and skill would be fatal
to their theory. The attributes of power and wisdom,
hitherto considered inseparable from the Creator, they

• Mr Darwin speaks of * Nature worked out by Natural Selection.' —
Orchids, 278.

t * No one who advanced so far in philosophy as to have thought of
one thing in relation to another, will ever be satisfied with laws which
had no author, works which had no maker, and co-ordinations which
bad DO designer.' — Phillips' Life on the Earth, 43.

326 THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN.

ignore ; and invent another power which is but an alle-
gory, and has only a verbal existence, and yet they
scruple not to say that 'they can see no limit to this
powEE (Natural Selection) in slowly and beautifully adapt-
ing each form to the most complex relations of Ufe'
(502).*

This advantage, then, at any rate, we have in arguing
with Mr Darwin, that we believe there really is a Power
that can, and has done, all these things, by supreme exer-
cise of intellect and will ; Mr Darwin does not believe this,
and yet he continually is making use of language implying
that he does believe it.

The explanation of this is, that he feels by the force of
reason that to be necessary and indispensable which his
Theory condemns.

This great question of design brings us ultimately to the
beginning of life, which Mr Darwin calls the Origin of
Species, and which it is the professed object of his book to
explain. In this, as we have seen, he has failed, as he has
only explained up to a certain point, which does not reach
the origin. He tells us of a primordial spore of the
lowest algae from which all animal and vegetable life was
evolved, but the origin of the great parent he leaves un-
touched.

It is, however, a remarkable circumstance that in the
edition of his work of the year 1859, from which Professor
Phillips has made his quotations, and from which many

^ * Every naturalist who has dissected some of the beings as now ranked
very low in the scale, must have been struck with their really \condrout
and beautiful organization (135).

* Whenever the period of activity cornes on, the adaptation of the larrjp
to its conditions of life is just as pei-fect and beautiful as in the adult
aniinul ' (472).

THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN. 327

others have made theirs, there was some further inform-
ation on this subject which has been since withdrawn.
In the edition of 1859 we read it thus : * All living things
have much in common in their chemical composition, &c. ;
therefore I should infer from analogy that the organic be-
ings which have ever lived on this earth have descended
from some one primordial form into which life was first
breathed.^ All the words from ' therefore ' to the end of
the sentence, have been suppressed in the subsequent edi-
tions; and in addition to this a long paragraph ending
with this sentence, * there is grandeur in this view of life,
with its several powers having been originally breathed into
a few forms or one ; and that whilst this planet has gone
cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so
simple a beginning endless forms, most beautiful and most
wonderful, have been, and are being evolved/

With this statement we should inquire, of course, how
was life breathed into the first forms : surely, in a point of
the system of such transcendent importance, Mr Darwin
cannot here also be talking allegorically — he must have
meant what he says, that life was breathed from a source that
had power to give it. Wliether there was an allusion here
to the language of the Scripture, must be left to surmise,
but certain it is that the whole paragraph is cancelled, and
that we now read the important sentence thus : * There-
fore on the principle of Natural Selection with divergence
of character, it does not seem incredible, that from some
such low and intermediate form, as the lower algae, both
animals and plants may have been developed — and if we
admit this, we must admit that all organic beings which
have ever lived on this earth may have descended from
some one primordial fonn ' (519).

328 THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN.

Now all this is very curious as showing how the author
of this Theory is unsettled on the main point, the Origin of
Species. At first, as he saw the necessity of an original
mover and a real commencement of life, we were informed
that life was * breathed ' into the first forms ; but subse-
quently, and in consequence perhaps of perceiving that this
statement was a virtual contradiction of the Theory, we are
told that all life descended from one form — leaving that one
form to acquire life as best it might.

The Theory, therefore, is in a more consistent dress at
present, and does not contradict itself at starting ; but it
is far more absurd, for we now see the origin of all things
traced to a sea- weed, which of course sprung from another
sea- weed, and so on backwards for millions of millions of
ages, for sea-weeds either sprung from some other form,
and therefore they cannot be the first themselves, or they
existed for ever without beginning, or they were created.

There is, however, another alternative — and it is that of
spontaneous generation. M. Pouchet — who is a Transniu-
tationist of the School of Lamarck — pure, and without ad-
mixture, openly defies* the scientific world to find any
other alternative ; either creation, says he, which is a mira-
cle, or ' successive evolution of Lamarck.' Now this succes-
sive evolution is from spontaneous generation, and of this
doctrine M. Pouchet is a conspicuous advocate. Neverthe-
less, he is quite right in his logic, that there is no other
alternative. Mr Darwin, f however, does not accept spon-

* ' Nous delious qu'on sorte de cette altenmtive, ou la creation instAn-
tance et miraculeuso d'un certain nombre d'animaux parfaits, ou revolu-
tion successive, c'cst k dire I'ideo de Lamarck, niodifiee dans le sens des
connaissances nouvelles quo resuraent h notre cpoque, d'un cote la geolo-
gic, et de I'autro Tanatomio pbilosopliique.* — Pouchet, La pluralitc des
races liumaines, 182.*

t * Lamarck was led to suppose that new and simple forms were c<>n-

THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN, 329

taneous generation, and therefore has no origin for his
system. His elephant stands upon a tortoise, and the tor-
toise upon nothing.

tiooaHy being produced by spontaneous generation ! I need hardly say
that science in her present state does not countenance the belief that liv-
ing creatures are now ever produced from inorganic matter ^ (135).

CHAPTER XVI.

THE CONCLUSION.

We have thus touched on the most important points of
Mr Darwin's Theory, though it would have required a
largely extended work to meet the numerous secondary
arguments and collateral disquisitions in the * Origin of
Species.' The reader will remember that the main pro-
positions of this Theory are :

1. That no organic being has been created.

2. That every plant and animal has been made by acci-
dental minute changes taking place in the organization of
antecedent forms.

3. That these changes, beneficial in result, but not in
intention, have given the possessor an advantage in the
struggle for life. The organized being with the advantage-
ous accidental change has been enabled to live ; the plant
or animal not so favoured has been exterminated.

4. No plant or animal has been designed for any par-
ticular object or place in nature, but all have taken such a
place as was open to them, and have maintained themselves
as well as they can in their position.

5. Every existing plant or animal is struggling' to main-
tain its place in nature. If others, near them in habits,

THE CONCLUSION. 331

should arise, better organized, they would have to succumb
and yield to the law of extermination. •

6. This operation is called Natural Selection : it does
not really construct or design anything ; it only, by ex-
terminating unimproved animals, preserves new improve-
ments in organized beings.

7. Natural Selection, when correctly stated, is 'the Se-
quence of Events as ascertained by us.'

8. Facts or events having followed one another in an
ascertained sequence explain the existence of things. Or-
ganized beings have become what they are, because they
are so. Existence is an absolute fact without a cause.

9. There is no such thing as Species : there is no fixed
and permanent division amongst plants and animals.

10. All varieties are in the act of becoming* species.
New forms of plants and animals are now in the progress
of evolving out of existing forms, by accidental beneficial
changes, and the process of extermination.

1 1 . Beauty in the works of Nature has not been pro-
duced by an intentional arrangement. If any plant or
animal is beautiful it is an accident.

12. All organized beings are slowly advancing towards
perfection. There will be a period when there will be no
more change; that is, when all plants and animals will
have obtained absolute perfection.

This creed, of which perhaps the last article is the most
surprising, is nevertheless well-considered as a whole.
The first point of advantage to gain was, of course, by an
attack on the fixedness of Nature's works, without which

• Here, then, is a coDtradiction between the 9th and 10th proposition,
for if there be no species in nature, varieties cannot of course be advanc-
ing towards species. This contradiction has been seen more at large in
the third chapter.

332 THE COXCLUSIOX,

the Theory could not advance one inch ; and for tins rea-
son we have the elaborate special pleading against Species,
in which Mr Darwin has as &equentlv asserted as he has
denied the point he was combating. It is against Species
that all the Transmutationists begin, for unless this obsta-
cle can be removed they can do nothing. Lamarck, the
author of Vestiges, Pouchet, Tr^maux, &c., all turn the
tide of their logic against Species — and the most vehement
of them all, Mr Darwin — ^but Species still remains unmoved
as firm as the everlasting hills, and all the impetus of this
sophistry expends itself in froth and foam, without accom-
plishing anything.

However, this is the beginning of the Theory, to talk
dotvn Species if possible ; and then, having made a clear
stage, to go on with transformations and metamorphoses,
without restraint. But then the question would arise,
what is to be the end of all this continual move in the
forms of life ? What are they all to come to at last ? Will
there be dragons, centaurs, mermaids, and satyrs again ?
Is mutation to go on for ever, elaborating we know not
what ? To this inquiry Mr Darwin has given an answer
by settling a terminus to which everything is tending —
tliis lerniinus to be reached, in an unknown series of ages,
is absohite i)erfection. When organized beings shall have
arrived at tliat point, Nature will have reached her Sabbath,
Natural Selection will cease from her work of carnage;
nft(T the extennination of infinite millions of organized
beings, more numerous than the figures of arithmetic can
r\|)ress, she will retire from the scene to take her great
reward in the Paradise of Metaphors. Every plant will be
pcMliu't, and every animal perfect, though, whether animals
will feed on plants or on one another as they do at present,

THE CONCLUSION. 333

the author of this prophecy has not revealed to us. Neither
do we know whether there will be distinction between car-
nivorous and graminivorous animals ; nor whether men will
have wings, and animals will talk: in short, we do not
know how animals are to be more perfect than they are.

Here, however, as usual in this Theory, a great design —
the greatest indeed that can possibly be imagined — is to
be eflFected without a designer and without the execution
of a plan. But as Mr Darwin has, throughout his system,
been well content to affirm that perfect works have been
made without a maker, and without the exercise of intel-
lect, he can have no difficulty in bringing everything to an
imaginary perfection by the same non-means. It is indeed
a sequence of Transmutation logic that it should be so.

Mr Darwin feels that the most advanced organization is
that of man, and therefore he seems to hint that in the
great and final palingenesy of his system, animals will
have a chance of becoming men, or at any rate very like
them.

To this, however, the allusion is in brief and guarded
terms* — intellect and an approach in structure to man
* clearly come into play ' — clearly come into play ! if Mr
Darwin would have made this most important point a
little more ' clear ' it would have been much to the satisfac-
tion of his readers. There is scarcely anything that he
has told us more interesting than this, as it turns on the
future destiny of animals ; and yet, all that we can learn

• * The ultimate result will be that each creature will tend to become
more and more improved in relation to its conditions of life. This im-
provement will, I think, inevitably lead to the gradual advancement of the
organization of the greater number of living beings throughout the world.
But here we enter on a very intricate subject, for naturalists have not de-
fined to each other's satisfaction what is meant by advance in organiza-
tion. Among the vertebrata the degree of intellect and an approach in
structure to man clearly come into play * (131).

334 THE CONCLUSION.

is condensed in these oracular words, selected, as we sus-
pect, for the vagueness of their import. So vague are they
that any commentary on them seems hazardous ; neverthe-
less, we may venture to oflFer this interpretation, that in the
advance of organization towards improvement in animals
the intellect and the structure of man is the point at which
they will either arrive, or to which they will approximate.
There is, however, involved in this a question which Mr
Darwin does not like to handle, the origin and the first
appearance of man. Of course in this system man was not
created ; he was gradually unfolded out of another form,
less perfect ; from some of the thousands of exterminated
creatures, intermediate between the ape and the man.
The human character and form are the result of changes
brought on by insensible degrees, and carried on during
an immense period of time. The intellect, conscience, vir-
tues, imagination, taste, wit, skill, reflection, and religion
of man are accidental beneficial accumulations carefully
preserved by Natural Selection, who killed off the less
complete semi-men, not endowed with these attributes.
Man was no more designed for his place in nature, than
* the incrustations* of carbonate of lime on the inside of a
kettle/ Accidental improvements, preserved in advancing
apes, produced the intellect of man, and the whole of liis
organization corresponding to his intellectual character.
His mind and character are the result of molecules of mat-
ter put into new shapes and places, and as he was not
created, but evolved, or developed, he is not a creature ac-
countable to his maker, for, indeed, he has no maker, nor
can a sense of right or wrong, or any moral feeling in rajui,
be considered anything but the motions of cerebral ini-

♦ Professor Sedgwick on the Studies of the University of Cambridge.

THE CONCLUSION, 335

pulse, or some yet unexplained action of galvanism or
chemical power.

With such an origin of the sense of duty, how can he
be certain that his ethical determinations are based on any
firm foundation ? or that they are more than temporary im-
pressions on the brain, which may have to undergo further
changes, and so be brought to entertain new apprehensions
of things ? If the rationale of morals depends on a correct
anatomy of the human mind, and an intimate acquaintance
with the affections, passions, and sentiments of the human
heart ; and if the human mind has been produced not long
ago (speaking geologically) by its altered anatomy, how is it
possible to be certain of the rectitude of moral precepts, as
they are at present accepted, unless it be also mathemati-
cally certain that the human anatomy is to change no more?
But lit is by no means certain that the intellectual, moral,
and physical qualities of man are stationary. They may
change according to this theory, so that a future advanced
man may be as far above the present man in his organiza-
tion and mental apparatus as the negro is above the gorilla.

Therefore we are not justified in affirming that the sus-
ceptibilities of moral emotion, in consequence of which
actions of a moral character are regarded with powerful
feelings of approval or condemnation, are permanent quali-
ties of the human mind. Moreover, it is certain that the
mind of man has not been formed for the object of discern-
ing what is right and approving it. If it does so it is an
accidental circumstance, it is merely a Sequence of Events
as ascertained by us, and therefore other events taking
place in the general arrangements of the human organiza-
tion may alter altogether the mental impressions, and pro-
duce other moral conceptions of an entirely new character.

336 THE CONCLUSION.

Now, as man is the standard of intellect and virtue, and
as man is not created, but developed out of unintelligent
antecedent matter, without any superintending design, it
is clear that intellect proceeds from non-intellect, and
that virtue is the result of blind matter put into certain
shapes, positions, and relations by chemical or mechanical
action.

Moral rectitude is a mere result of a modification of
matter, analogous to the growth of mould in a cheese : let
the organization that produces it be re-modified, and the
result will be different.

Mr Darwin, indeed, anticipates that his system will in-
troduce an entirely new era of psychology. * In the dis-
tant future I see open fields for far more important re-
searches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation,
that of the necessary acquirements of each mental power
and capacity by gradation. Light will be thrown on the
origin of man and his history' (523).

Whether this brief account of the moral attributes of
man, as logically deduced from the Theory, may be a fore-
shadowing of the new psychology we will not venture to
say, but that it is a true history of man's origin in the
genesis of the Transmutationists is indisputable. Psycho-
logy, nevertheless, seems to be a word but ill-fitted to the
doctrine of this school; a soul cannot be developed from the
changed flesh and bones of an ape ; somatology, therefore,
is the more appropriate term for this system — as the
organization has changed by ' gradations,' so has the cbt-
racter of the animal man changed by gradations : and pe^
haps many thousands of experimental species of men weit
exterminated before man was produced with his present
faculties.

THE CONCLUSION. 337

But in this Theory what shall we say of virtue and moral
excellency as the crowning attributes of man ? How have
they made their appearance in the human animal, slowly
transformed into his present nature from the baboon ?
That these qualities have not been pre-ordained as a dis-
tinguishing plan for the race, is quite certain in the phi-
losophy of Natural Selection ; for if man had been designed
to be a creature that should appreciate virtue, then he must
have been the product of a creative will, operating ante-
cedently to his existence. Man, therefore, by this system,
must have attained his moral peculiarities just as all other
animals have become possessed of the instincts or charac-
ters of their races, by additions and mutations from other
antecedent forms ; and if he be an animal striving after
moral superiority, it . is the result of the sequence of
events, and not of intention or design. We must, therefore,
place virtue in this Theory precisely on the same footing
with every other attribute of every other animal, and ac-
count for its existence in the same way : that is, we must
say that when the first virtuous men, or men with a capa-
city to appreciate virtue, were accidentally elaborated, it
gave them a decided advantage over all their congeners
who did not share with them in the new quality, and so
enabled them to keep their place in the struggle for hfe,
whilst their competitors were exterminated by that rigorous
law which knows no exception. In one word, the men en-
dowed with virtue exterminated all those who lacked that
endowment.

If this should be a startling history of the origin of
moral excellence, and if it should be contradicted by all
the records of our race, we must, nevertheless, believe that

^38 THE CONCLUSION,

it was so, for the Theory imperatively demands it, and can-
not subsist without the supposition.

But we return to the text of all these remarks, and ob-
serve on it that it contains three statements. 1. That each
creature will tend to become more and more improved-in
relation to its conditions of life ; 2. The greater number of
animals throughout the world will be advanced in organiza-
tion ; 3. That amongst the vertebrata this advance has a re-
ference to the intellect and structure of man.

Now the vertebrata begin with the fishes : there will be
therefore advancement in the depths of the sea, and great
things will take place amongst the finny tribes. Much
might we speculate on the intellectual improvement of the
whale, who, as belonging to the mammalia, would have the
first claim to advancement amongst animals in the waters
— and much of every species of fish — but this may be
omitted, and we now proceed to observe that in this pro-
spective advancement of lower forms there is a contradic-
tion in the Theory.

It has been urged against it that if all organic beings
tend to rise in the scale, as we are taught has always been
the case, how is it that throughout the world a multitude
of the lowest forms still exist ?

Mr Darwin has noticed this objection, and has told us
that ' Lamarck, who believed in an innate and inevitable
tendency towards perfection in all organic beings, seems to
have felt this difficulty so strongly that he was led to sup-
pose that new and simple forms were continually produced
by spontaneous generation ' (135). This of course, by
help of a bold figment, was a solution of the difficulty;
Lamarck, by affirming that all the lower forms were cod- I
tinually coming into existence by spontaneous generation, '

THE CONCLUSION. 339

could account for their not having as yet been transformed
into higher grades of hfe. But how does Mr Darwin,
who repudiates the solution of Lamarck, surmount the dif<
ficulty ?

His method is this, he turns against his own statements,
and undertakes to show that it is not requisite that the
lower forms should be advanced. He asks us * what ad-
vantage would it be to an infusorial animalcule, to an in-
testinal worm, or even an earth-worm, to be highly organ-
ized ? If it were no advantage these forms would be left
by Natural Selection unimproved ' (135).

This very unexpected answer is in fact a confutation of
the Theory,

* How do we know it would be any advantage for the
lower forms to be more highly organized ? '

How, indeed, do we know ? This is precisely the ques-
tion we put in every case of Mr Darwin's alleged metamor-
phoses. We do not confine it to earth-worms, but in the
case of tapirs, ostriches, logger-headed ducks, bears, &c.,
we ask precisely the same question ? how do we know it
would be for their advantage to be changed ?

Mr Darwin tells us that these changes have taken
plac3 by accidental beneficial modifications ; but we ask
him how any animal can be benefited by a change ? All
animals below man are of the lower forms, and all, accord-
ing to the Theory, have been changed, because it would be
to their advantage. But let him name any animal that is
to be changed; and how can he venture to affirm that
any change whatever would be for the advantage of that
animal ? To change a frog into an eagle would be no
benefit to the frog, for he is in his own department of life
perfect ; and so of every creature, however humble it may

340 THE CONCLUSION.

appear to us — the infusoria, the rhizopoda, &c., are for
their destination perfect. Mr Darwin himself has told us
that ' every naturalist who has dissected some of these be-
ings now ranked as very low in the scale, has been struck
with their really wondrous and beautiful organization/ Is
it not then a monstrous idea to set about improving ' won-
drous and beautiful organizations ; ' and is it not a sort of
madness to think of making an animal something else than
what it actually is ?

In this matter, therefore, we repeat it, Mr Darwin has
completely answered himself, ' How do we know that it
would be any advantage for the lower forms to be more
highly organized ? '

Nevertheless, from him, this question is most strange ;
for the answer would be that in this Tlieory the benefit of
an advancing change would be everything.

Would it not be an advantage, according to the repre-
sentations of this Theory, for an intestinal worm to be ad-
vanced into the owner of the intestine, who might be a
grand Lama, a king, or a pope ? and would it not be a glori-
ous promotion for an oyster to be promoted into an alder-
man who devours the oysters? and why condemn the earth-
worms to perpetual humiliation ? If a form is low in the
scale of organization, Mr Darwin takes it for granted, in his
scheme of Natural Selection, that it would be an advant-
age to promote it into one of superior grade : on this the
whole theory of metamorphose proceeds, how then can he
thus turn round upon us, and ask what advantage it would
be for an carth-w^orm to be highly organized ?

We know very well, that in the truth of nature such
changes would not be advantageous, but Mr Darwin al-
ways reasons on this subject the other way, and judges d

THE CONCLUSION, 341

the feelings and interests of animals as if he himself were
one of them, and were therefore anxious for promotion.
It is quite true that in our opinion, and with our human
feelings, it would be more agreeable, as well as more dig-
nified, to be a race-horse than an earth-worm ; but worms
do not reason and feel as we do, and if a choice of
change were offered to the worm he would not have the
slightest inclination to quit his native clod and run for the
Derby.

According to nature and the established laws of life it
certainly would be no advantage to advance any animal
into a higher form, it would on the contrary be as disas-
trous as it is impossible ; but according to the Theory it
would be most desirable, it would be gaining a point in
that progress of animal life which it is the object of the
system to establish. We cannot do better than to finish
these remarks with Mr Darwin's own words, self-immolat-
ing as they are to the learned gentleman. ' Who can pre-
tend that he knows the Natural History of any organic
being sufficiently well to say whether any particular change
would be to its advantage ? '* (137.)

* We have seen in the last chapter Mr Darwin's reveries on the corre-
lation of change possible between the hive-bee and the red clover, and yet,
behold ! thus does he write against himself in another passage : —

* It has been objected, if Natural Selection be so powerful, why has not
this or that organ been recently modified and improved. Why has not
the proboscis of the hive-bee been lengthened so as to reach the nectar in
the flowers of the red clover ? but can we feel sure that a long proboscis
wonld not be a disadvantage to the hive-bee in sucking the innumerable
small flowers which it frequents ? Can we feel sure that a long proboscis
would not, by correlation of growth, almost necessarily give increased size
to other parts of the moutii, perhaps interfering with the delicate cell-
constructing work * (130).

Who can write so effectually against Mr Darwin as Mr Darwin himself?
And who, when facing Nature, in a candid spirit and free from the contagion
of paradox, can so acutely observe and so ably apply the observations ho
barf made?

342 THE CONCLUSION.

Yet this is the very thing which Mr Darwin has assert^
again and again in every chapter, that it has been for the
advantage of the lower animals that they should be
changed, and, moreover, he predicts that this system of
mutation will go on amongst them till it reaches per-
fection.

Here, then, is the contradiction, Mr Darwin meets the
objection of the lower animals remaining as yet unchanged
by teUing us it would not be to their advantage that they
should be changed ; and yet he predicts that ' each creature
will tend to become more and more improved in relation
to its condition of life/ In short, he writes for and against
the advance of the lower animals ; and his own confutation
of himself is unanswerable.

In the mean while we may rest satisfied that the Theory
is visibly confuted by the existence of innumerable lower
forms remaining unchanged; and by the palpable fact
that the lower forms have not been exterminated by the
higher. This may be noticed anywhere; moreover, we
see numbers of species closely allied to one another living
together, that is, occupying the same regions, without the
slightest tendency to this imaginary extermination. The
horse, it will be said, is an improvement on the ass ; these
creatures are so nearly allied that a mixed progeny can be
produced between them, and yet there is no tendency in
the horse to exterminate the ass in a state of nature ; and
so in thousands of other instances. If indeed we could
bring ourselves to doubt that which is so evident, Mr
Darwin's perplexity of reasoning and his contradictions on
this topic would be amply sufficient to convince us of the
real state of the case. And here, to dismiss this subject
of Natural Selection by extermination, this need only be

THE CONCLUSION. 343

added to foregoing remarks — ^that this operation imagined
by Mr Darwin is merely an expedient to account for the
total want of intermediate links,* necessary to connect the
transformation of one animal into another. Where are all
these intermediate forms, which in some cases Mr Darwin
says, in general terms, may have been ten thousand ;
where are they, in what department of nature shall we find
them ? The reply to this is, they have all been exter-
minated, they could not keep their places in the competi-
tion for hfe, and, therefore, all have been swept away into
oblivion by Natural Selection.

But where is the evidence of this extermination ? how
comes it that when Geology has preserved such multitudes
of extinct animals, it has preserved none of these inter-
mediate forms ? In very many cases this slaughter must
have taken place amongst large quadrupeds, but of all the
ten thousand links connecting the tapir with the horse, in
which of the geological formations shall we find one ?

To this Mr Darwin answers, ' what geological research
has not revealed in the former existence of infinitely nu-
merous gradations, as fine as existing varieties connectingf
all known species ? ' (324).

Then how can we accept this bold assertion, involving a
whole system of nature, without any proof? Has any

* * We may thus account even for the distinctness of whole classes
from each other, for instance, of birds from all other vertebrate animals,
by this heUrf that many ancient forms of life have been utterly lost^ through
which the early progenitors of birds were fonnerly connected with the
early progenitors of the other vertebrate classes * (463).

To believe in these many ancient forms of life which no one can
describe to us, and of the existence of which no evidence can possibly be
obtained, is asking more of us tiian to believe in Griflins and Centaurs, of
which there are many delineations and many descriptions.

•f And, again, * Tlie number of intennediate and transitional links be-
tween all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great.
Bui assuredly^ if this TJieory be true, such have lived upon earth * (305).

344 THE CONCLUSION,

branch of science been established by assertions only ? is
not a proof, such as the senses can appreciate, requisite in
every step of legitimate science ? has not geology taken its
place amongst the noblest of the sciences by an appeal to
facts, have not chemistry, astronomy, electricity, all ad-
vanced by rigid proof; and must we accept your system
not by the process of proof but of special pleading ? To
all this Mr Darwin has one answer, we must believe. ' I see
no difficulty in believing,' he has told us in scores of in-
stances. If my Theory be true, it must be so : but my
Theory is true, therefore it is so.*

This is a compendious statement of the expedient, on
which everything depends. It is the body and soul of the
whole system, but geology, with all the rocks of the world,
annihilates it ; all the series of strata from the most modern
down to the Silurian formations overwhelm it with con-
futation, and though Nature be ransacked in all her
corners, not a vestige of proof to corroborate this baseless
Theory, can anywhere be discovered.

Mr Darwin has given us a text for our contemplation of
Nature : ' Every organized being is trying to livcf where it

* * If my Theory be true, it is indisputable tliat before tbc lowest Silu-
rian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably
far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present
day, and that during these vast, yet quite un/cnown perifnls of timc^ the
world swarmed with living creatures' (333).

And this most wild suggestion has been endorsed by Sir C. Lyell:
*The oldest fossiliferous strata known to us, may dk the last of a lou.;;
series of antecedent formations, which once contained organic beings.' —
Antiquity of Man, 470.

When these learned gentlemen can fix their sheet-anchor in no firmer
ground than this, that a conjecture may not be impossible, they must not
be surprised if they suffer shipwreck. Professor Sedgwick has well ob-
served, * A theory is worse than nothing if it reflect not back the present
condition of our knowledge. If it tell of laws neither proved nor suggested
by the lessons of experiment and observation, it is nothing better than iw-
posture.^ — Studies of Cambridge, 71.

f And, again, * Most of the animals and plants which live close round

THE CONCLUSION. 345

can live ' (224). Everywhere, according to him, there is
a struggle, a scuffle, a vehement contention for life : plants
and animals are driving and pushing in unceasing com-
petition to maintain their existence ; and Natural Selection
is looking on with her murderous eyes to cut oflF the weak-
est. But what a dream is this ! who ever suspected all
this tumultuous tragedy in the serenity of Nature's ap-
pearances ? every returning season introduces us again to
our old friends, in the same places ; Spring comes and
brings with her the violet, the primrose, the cowslip
quietly shining in their old haunts ; the hyacinths and the
orchises carpet the woods as usual ; all the sweet flowers
smile upon us with their * quaint enamelled eyes ' as they
did on our forefathers ; the little birds build their beauti-
ful nests as of old, and the cuckoo tolls his bell in the
groves as he did in the days of the Saxon Heptarchy. We
can reckon on all the forms of life reappearing with cer-
tainty, in every country and every climate. We hear of
no scuffle, we see no extermination ; creatures most like
one another seem to know nothing of this competition.
Even the venomous snakes live in peace in the same
regions with their* non-venomous congeners, and where
the dangerous serpents abound others also abound that
are comparatively innocuous. There are indeed the ear-
any small piece of ground may be said to he striving to tlie utmost to live
there' (120). And, again, * All organic beings are striving to seize on
each place in the economy of nature ' (107).

* ^ In all cases the new and improved forms of life tend to supplant the
old and unimproved forms * (304). The serpents with venom-fangs have
received a most marked distinction amongst all the serpent tribe. This,
in the Theory, has been eflfected by Natural Selection, who must have
known much more than modern chemists, as they cannot give us an
analysis of that fatal venom, nor tell us of what it is composed. But the
serpents which had obtained this advantage ought to have exterminated
all other serpents, not so endowed. This, indeed, they were well qualitied
to do, but nothing of the sort has taken place.

Z^ THE COXCLUSION.

niTcxoiis iinimak seeking their prej, bat this arrangement
is not on a design of extermination but of repression : and,
however the hawks and other rapacious birds may prevail,
we may be quite sure thej will not exterminate the
thrushes and the blackbirds ; nor have we the slightest
apprehension that the goldfinch, the robin red-breast, or
the Uttle wren will disappear, notwithstanding the terrors
of Natural Selecti<Mi.

In bidding farewell, then, to this subject we have ex-
amined Natural Selection with sufficient care to understand
that it represents nothing, and is a mere play of words.
The only real part of the Theory is Accidental Change and
Extermination. There is no other agency. There is no-
thing that can select ; no power, intellect, or existence of
any sort, that can make any choice, or discriminate between
the useful and the inexpedient.

The animal is represented as changing its organization
spontaneously, and by slow degrees ; the animal that does
not change is exterminated. Tliis is the whole machinery
by which organized beings have been produced.

The term ' Natural Selection/ therefore, is superfluous,
it is an illusion, an allegorical phantasy devoid of real
meaning, and representing no fact. It ought to be en-
tirely banished from the system, and from the title-page of
Mr Darwin's book where it is offered as an alternative :
* Origin of Species, b^ means of Natural Selection ; or, the
preser\ation of favoiu'ed races in the Struggle for Life/
That is, we may take our choice between these two state-
ments, which are proposed as equivalent. But the first is
a misrepresentation, for species cannot derive their origin
from that which has no real existence ; and the second
contains two errors : 1. ' The favoured races ;' favoured by

THE CONCLUSION. 347

whom, or by what ? this expression implies selection and
has a reference to the first part of the title. 2. *The
Straggle for Life ' is a metaphor, which Mr Darwin cannot
pretend is to be taken literally. Thus the title of the book
has three metaphorical expressions, as an earnest of all
that was to follow.

' The production of species by accident and extermina-
tion ' would have expressed more correctly and truthfully
the gist of the Treatise.

Mr Darwin has himself told us that Natural Selection is
a metaphor, and yet on this basis has he argued all
through his book, without even once availing himself of
that definition which he assures conveys the real meaning
of the term. That there has been an object in this we can
scarcely doubt, it has been intended to induce the reader,
by continual usage of the words, to suppose that there is
really a power of selection and of choice in this dispensa-
tion of metamorphoses. Very numerous are the passages
in which Natural Selection is personified, and represented
as a vigilant inspector and improver of the forms of life,
and as endowed with transcendent skill and wisdom in her
multiplied operations. Several of these passages the reader
has seen, and that this inexcusable language has produced
its effect on the converts to the system is more than pro-
bable. But as a corrective to this illusion we propose this
experiment. Let the reader, in every instance in which
the w^ord Natural Selection occurs, substitute* the real

• Take the following instance of a sentence thus corrected : * Under
changing conditions of life, there is no logical impossibility in the ac-
qairement of any conceivable perfection through — the Sequence of Events
as ascertained by us * (224).

And again : * The Sequence of Events as ascertained by us, is a power
incessantly ready for action ; and is as immeasurably superior to man's
feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art ' (65).

348 THE CONCLUSION.

meaning of the term, * the Sequence of Events as ascer-
tained by us/ and it will then be seen how soon the bubble
bursts. We recommend this experiment to all the con-
verts of Transmutation.

It is, however, a dangerous practice to trifle with words,
and more especially in a scientific treatise ; for whilst we
are thus misleading others we not unfrequently mislead
ourselves ; and that Mr Darwin has done this in not a few
instances, but especially in the following passage, is suf-
ficiently evident.

' If this relation, on the one hand, between the viscid
matter requiring some little time to set hard, and the
nectar being so lodged that moths are delayed in getting
it ; and, on the other hand, between the viscid matter be-
ing at first as viscid as ever it will become, and the nectar
lying all ready for rapid suction, be accidental, it is a for-
tunate accident for the plant. If not accidental, and i

CANNOT BELIEVE IT TO BE ACCIDENTAL, WHAT A SINGULAR
CASE OF ADAPTATION. Orcllids, 53.

Now, these last words are precisely such as Pjvley would
have used in the case in point, and indeed he has fre-
quently expressed himself in not dissimilar language, in
his explanation of the contrivances and adaptations of the
structure of organic beings. With him, whose reasoning
is avowedly directed to attribute all that is wise, beneficial,
and beautiful in nature to the Creator, such lannjuafre is

' DO

— And iu this magnificent sentence :

* I can see no limit to the amount of change, to the beauty and infinite
complexity of the co-adaptations between all organic beings, one with an-
other and with their physical conditions of life, which may be efTected in
the long course of time by — the Sequence of Events as ascertained bv us'
(113).

The epitome of all this may be taken in these words : ' I can believe
that anything may have been effected without a cause.'

THE CONCLUSION, 349

natural, but with Mr Darwin, whose whole system is
aimed against the idea of creation, nothing can be more
inappropriate — nothing more self-convicting. It is the
result of an habitual abuse of words. The learned author
of the system has so continually spoken of Natural Se-
lection, as a real existence, and an Intelligent Power in
Nature, that he has at Itfst, in his moments of inattention,
come to think that the phantasy is indeed a real substance,
and he has, in consequence, made use of expressions
which stultify all his Theory. If the arrangements of
which he speaks were not accidental, they certainly were
intentional, they were the result of a design, they were, as
he says, a singular case of adaptation, and were devised
and planned to produce the effect which he so much
admires.

All this is true, but then it annihilates the Theory.

Wherever we turn in our inspection of this Theory we
find that ingenuity has been taxed to produce imaginary
beings, events, and circumstances, which have no existence
but in the magisterial affirmation of the inventor ; and that
the whole system from beginning to end is based on
assumption without proof. Every step of the argument is
wanting in that exact evidence which Science demands
even in the most ordinary case, but which in a Theory
such as this would require more than usual scrutiny.
We have a profusion of physiological learning, abstract
reasoning, and ingenious speculations, but the plain direct
facts which are indispensable for establishing the main
points are wanting. Probabilities and possibilities abound,
and it is a favourite expression with the learned author that
*he sees no great difficulty in believing' some strange
proposition adduced in the course of his argument. We

350 THE CONCLUSION.

have analogies and presumptions, and all the expedients of
able special pleading — we have questionable propositions
taken for principles, but the evidence which should estab-
lish them wholly omitted ; and we meet with the freest
flights of the imagination in asserting circumstances as
facts, which have no more claim to our credence than the
mythical allegories of the Hindoo Cosmogony.

Locke, in his 20th chapter, on the Causes of Error, has
placed amongst the first, want of proofs ; and these pages
will have shown the reader that the instances are numerous
in which we have met with assertions unsupported by
proof.

Let us now in recapitulation look at a few of the most
striking instances.

In the matter of species, the primum mobile of the
Theory, Mr Darwin acknowledges that his scheme is an
assumption. He tells us that varieties in process of time
become species, then, after a long interval, they vary
again, and so ultimately make another species.

' That varieties more or less difierent from the parent
stock occasionally arise, few will deny, that the process of
variation should be thus indefinitely prolonged (i.e. that
they should become species) is an assumption, the truth
of which must be judged of by how far the hypothesis
accords with and explains the general phenomena of Na-
ture' (89).

Now this process of variations becoming what Mr Dar-
win calls ' good species,' is an assumption for an hy-
pothesis. This we learn from the best authority ; and
this be it remembered is the great point of the Theory, the
Mutability of Species.

Again, we hear that 'new forms are continually and

THE CONCLUSION. 351

slowly being produced' (115). What evidence has Mr
Darwin for this assertion ? where are his proofs ? the
answer is that historical time is as nothing for such a pro-
cess ; five or six thousand years, the utmost reach of his-
tory, are a trifle for Natural Selection. The slowness is
that of geological time. Be it so, but still the process is
an assertion without a proof.

Again : ' As new forms are continually and slowly being
produced, unless we believe that the number of specific
forms goes on perpetually and almost indefinitely increas-
ing, numbers must inevitably become extinct. That the
number of specific forms has not indefinitely increased
geology* tells us plainly ' (89).

This, as a specimen of Mr Darwin's reasoning, deserves
more than passing attention.

First he lays it down as an established fact — as an axiom
— that * new forms are continually and slowly being pro-
duced,' and then, on this assertion, the logic of the rest of
the sentence is constructed.

New forms are continaally being produced.
But if 80, the number of them must indefinitely incrcnse :
But geology teaches us that they do not indefinitely incrouso,
Therefore the new forms are extenninated. — Q. E. D.

Again : varieties are frequently called 'incipient species ;'
an assertion without proof (131).

^ Here again geology is admitted as an unanswerable witness whose tes-
timony must settle the question : and that on the very point of the greatest
importance to Mr Darwin. It is a question of the indefinite increase of
specific fonns. The evidence which geology offers on this question is here
taken as decisive: but when we ask for the evidence of his exterminated
intermediate forms in the records of geology, he tells us that the extreme
imperfection of the record fails in proving that on which his theory de-
pends. Thus geology is good evidence against the indefinite increase of
forms, because it does not produce them ; but for the extermination of an
indefinite number of forms it is a bad witness for the same reason, because
it does not produce them.

352 THE CONCLUSION.

Again : ' When a part has been developed in an extra-
ordinary manner in any one species, compared with the
other species of the same genus, we may conclude that the
part has undergone an extraordinary amount of modifica-
tion since the period when the species branched off from
the common progenitor of the genus ' (171).

Here are three assumptions : 1 . That parts of organis-
ations have undergone modification. 2. That the species
branched off. 3. That there is a common progenitor of
a genus. No proof is offered for any of these propositions.

Again : the retrogression of animals, and their degrada-
tion into a lower form, is entirely hypothetical. There is
no proof of this in nature, and Mr Darwin offers nothing to
confirm it but his simple assertion.

All the particular cases of metamorphose, as a bustard
into an ostrich, a tapir into a horse, &c., &c., are purely
visionary. No proof of these pretended changes is men-
tioned.

The account of the formation of the eye — of the tails of
animals — of the beautiful plumage of birds, and other parts
of animal organization, is in every instance given to us
without an attempt at proof.

The gradual advance of organized beings towards perfec-
tion is visionary, proof indeed could not be given of such a
prediction.

The assertion that the animals of lower form have uot
been advanced to the higher, because it zvould not he for
their benefit, as it is altogether visionary, and incapable of
proof, has been propounded merely to parry an unanswer-
able argument against the Theory.

The doctrine of Natural Selection by extermination is
an assertion without proof. It is, however, disproved by

THE CONCLUSION. 353

the testimony of geology, and this Mr Darwin acknow-
ledges to be a most serious difficulty. We ask for the in-
termediate forms swept off by millions through Natural
Selection. Where are they to be found? And why not
found when so many forms of distinct organization have
been discovered in all parts of the world ? All the distinct
forms, or great numbers of them, have been discovered,
but the intermediates are as if they had never existed —
they are invisible.* And an Edinburgh Reviewer has well
said ' that Geology, not seen through the mist of any theory,
but taken as a plain succession of monuments and facts,
offers one firm cumulative argument against the hypothesis.'

Finally, the pretended origin of all plants and animals
from one primordial form — a spore of one of the lowest
algae, is visionary. No proof can be adduced of such a
proposition, which surely may bear the palm amongst pre-
posterous conjectures.

Thus all the main parts of the Theory are assertions with-
out proof. It is not a system established by inductive
reasoning, but by conjecture, assumption, and invention.
Now all natural knowledge is based on inductive reason-
ing. We have learnt to comprehend the mechanical
movement of the heavens by first learning the laws of
motion upon the earth. In like manner we have learnt to
speculate securely on the functions of organized beings
during the old conditions of the earth, by first studying the
laws of organic life among the phenomena of living nature.
In every instance we must begin with what is known and

® * Cependant on peut leur repondre, dans leur propre systfime, que si
les CHpeces ont change par degrds, on devroit trouver dcs traces de ces
modifications graduelles; — pourqnoi les cntraillcs do la terre n^ont ollcs
point conserve les monuments d'uno gencalogio si curieuse.* — Cuvier,
Discours Preliminaire (74).

354 THE CONCLUSIOK

present to us, before we can speculate about what is un-
known and remote. To this rule we know of no exception.

But in an hypothesis based on assumption, such as Mr
Darwin himself acknowledges his account of species to be
— which is the same thing as confessing that it is devoid
of proof — how can its author demand as his right the as-
sent of those to whom it is addressed ? But the assent of
the reason is a sort of right which every writer may de-
mand who is conscious that his statements are supported
by accuracy of proof. Harvey, Cuvier, Hunter, de Can-
dolle, Miiller, Valentine, Owen, and other great names,
take it for granted that the evidence of their statements
must produce conviction, and they advance from step to
step in their doctrine in perfect security of their position.

But with Mr Darwin a new principle is continually
evoked, it is not the assent of the understanding, but it is
faith: — 'we must believe' — and the number of instances
in which this is urged, or in which Mr Darwin says that
' he sees no great difficulty in believing ' such or such a
conjecture, is truly astonishing. * It is necessary to believe
that when a variety has once arisen it again varies, aiui
that these varieties are preserved ' (i. e. become ' good and
distinct species ' (89), and so on continually. Here a
fundamental principle of the Theory is proposed as an
article of faith : it is not proved to us, but we must believe
it. Many such examples have already been laid before
the reader, and therefore they will not be repeated. In
the note * references will be found to some remarkable

* See pages 89, 91, 99, 115, 152, 199, 207, 209, 211, 212, 213, 220, 221,
225, 229, 256, 258, 259, 205, 329, 33G, 332, 333, 403, 409, 519, &c.
These references are to the third edition.

THE CONCLUSION, 355

passages where this occurs, but by careful search the
number might be considerably increased.

We may say generally that Mr Darwin's Theory is ex-
pressed in the form of a creed.

Now surely this is instructive, and must convince us
that in order to avoid the miraculous, by seeking for a
new method in the interpretation of nature, the end is not
only not obtained, but the result is exactly opposite to our
expectations. In the old method the great physiologists
take it for granted that their researches can only reach a
certain point, beyond which they cannot penetrate, there
they come to the inexplicable, and they believe that barrier
to be the Creator's power, which they leave at a respectful
distance. This, according to the feelings of the ancients,
was *the veil of nature which no mortal hand had ever
withdrawn,' and as they approached it, they felt and spoke
of it with reverence.

Now the new method is to discard the belief in a
Creator, to reject the ompiscience and omnipotence of a
Maker of all things — to speak of the act * of creation with
scorn — to charge us who believe in it with endeavouring
to conceal our ignorance by an imposing form of words ;
and to undertake to explain the origin of all forms of life
by another and a totally different hypothesis. What,
then, is the result ? a long list of new and doubtful as-
sertions, some of them of surpassing novelty and wildness,
and all of them unaccompanied by proof, but proposed as
points of behef. The marvellous in the old method is in

® Mr DarwiD Dot unfrequently speaks of creation as a Theory : —
* How inexplicable, on the TJieonj of Creation^ is the variable appearance
of stripes on the shoulders and legs of the several species of the horse-
genus, and in their hybrids * (506), and other passages.

356 THE COXCLUSIOX.

one point only, and that for the most part more impUed
than expressed, the belief in a paramount Intellect ordain-
ing life and providing for its success. The marrelloos in
the new way is a vast assemblage of prodigies, strange and
nnheard-of events and circmnstances that cannot be con-
finned hj anj authentic evidence, and which, indeed, are
ont of the reach of evidence — a throng of aery dreams and
phantasies, evoked by the imagination, which we are caDed
on to believe as realities, as it is impossible to prove that
they are so.

Therefore we affirm that if it were for nothing else than
to get clear of the marvellons, it would be far wiser and
more prudent to adhere to the old method, since the
credulity demanded in the School of Transmutation, as
essential for discipleship, very greatly exceeds any acts of
faith habitual to the old way of thinking.

Mr Darwin, indeed, seems to think that he has opened
a way for the augmentation of knowledge hitherto un-
known, and that by the aid of his system he is to be the
pioneer of immense discoveries. * We shall never probably
disentangle the inextricable web of affinities, but when we
have a distinct object in view, and do not look to some un-
known plan of creation, we may hope to make slow but
sure progress ' (464).

Is not, then, the progress that has hitherto been made
snre ? Have not the great naturalists, who have preceded
Mr Darwin, or who have been his contemporaries, paid
large tribute into the treasury of science ? is all that they
have taught uncertain, vacillating, and questionable ? and
hns the progress which knowledge has made been so very
slow this century? Has everything been at a stand-still,
and were we all groping in the dark till this new light of

THE CONCLUSION. 357

Transmutation blazed upon us? and will the discoveries
of the Transmutationists be more sure than those by
which Science has already been enriched ? When we
hear that it has taken a long time to acquire a pair of
wings, certainly the progress of that phenomenon must
have been slow enough, but that it is more sure than a
long list of physiological discoveries effected in this century
is not quite so obvious.

Mr Darwin seems, in the zeal of his new creed, to
think that a belief in the plan of creation has hitherto been
the chief hindrance to the advance of science; truly a
strange opinion to have adopted. We know how the
world is indebted to the discoveries of Harvey, and we
also know how, directed by the conviction that there is a
plan in the works of creation, he made those discoveries.
If we refer to Newton, the great sun of the scientific world,
we know fuU well his sentiments on this subject, and we
remember that he interwove his creed in the text of his
immortal Principia. The sentiments of Cuvier on this
head are no secret, and it is quite evident that his strong
belief in the design of creation greatly influenced his
scientific labours, and contributed in no small measure to
their triumphant result. Even Laplace has shown us, by
the doctrine of probabilities,* that the machinery of the
heavens must have been devised by an original or first

* Laplace baa shown by the calcalus of probabilities that it is above
foar miUions to one in favour of the forty-three motions from west to east
(including rotation aa well aa revolution, and the motion of the rings as
weU as of the planets and satellites) having been directed by an original
or first caase. And by the same calculation he has shown the probability
of the sun's rising again on the moment of any g^ven day, to be not much
more than 1,800,000 to one ; or in other words, that the rising of the sun
is two million times less probable than the truth of the proposition that
the motions in our system were designed by one first cause.

358 THE CONCLUSION.

cause ; and long indeed would be the list of men of dis-
tinguished intellect, who, in all departments of science,
have felt that there is a plan in creation, and that the
wisdom and beauty of its design prove the divine power of
its Author.

The name of Mr Darwin himself might, thirty years
ago, have been placed in this list. Was he at that time
groping in the thick fog of error and ignorance ? we might
almost suppose he thinks so, by the following words :
* when we no longer look at an organic being as a savage
looks at a ship, as at something wholly beyond his compre-
hension, how far more interesting — / speak from experi-
ence — will the study of Natural History become ' (521).

What then ! do naturalists and anatomists of repute
look at an organic being as a savage looks at a ship ? can
they not explain a large portion of the design of that
organization, though they be not adherents of Mr Dar-
win's sect? and are all men of science in the civilized
world staring at Nature like ignorant savages, because
their eyes are not purged with the coUyrium of Lamarck's
prescnption ?

Mr Darwin may indeed feel deeply interested in looking
at his own organization as the result of twenty thousand
improving apes, exterminated to bring him to perfection,
but others, to whom the orang-outang genealogy is less at-
tractive, and who have always believed that the first sire of
their race was of the highest origin, will be not less satis-
fied with the ancient opinions regarding the history of their
existence. But now that all things are to be made so clear
by the bright morning light of Transmutation we may in-
quire whether Mr Darwin has himself advanced the know-
ledge of organization by his new method ? Not the least ;

THE CONCLUSION. 359

for though he twits us with* our ill-disguised ignorance, yet
when it comes to the point where the real difficulty lies,
and where the explanation is wanting, he is just as ignor-
ant as we are, and plainly confesses that he can neither ac-
count for the first beginning of life, nor for the mode in
which the alleged mutations are effected.

He uses very strong language in some instances, and
tells us that *it is impossible to conceive by what steps
these wondrous organs have been produced ' (p. 818).

He acknowledges, not merely once or twice, that these
things pass his knowledge — the unknown quantity of the
problem he cannot discover, he is fairly baffled, and he
tells us so.

As then he is not, by virtue of his new method, one
inch in advance of other physiologists in the exposition of
the secrets of Nature, he must be content to be, in that re-
spect, as we are — and if we are * looking at organized be-
ings as a savage looks at a ship,' he is in the same predica-
ment, as true a savage as ever was tattooed in fidl cannibal
decoration. All that we can do, savages as we are, is to
be looking still closer, to be continually recording the facts
we discover, and for which we can show our proofs , and
thus by slow degrees we may perhaps learn more, in the
prescribed labours of patient observation.

But we do not repudiate this charge of ignorance ; we

^ ' It is BO easy to hide our ignorance under snch expressions as the
* plan of creation," " unity of design," &c., and to think that we give an ex-
planation when we only re-state a fact. Any one whose disposition leads
bim to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explana-
tion of a number of facts will certainly reject my theory '(516).

Here Mr Darwin plainly sets himself up as the great interpreter of the
difficulties of nature, and tells us that those whose disposition leads them
to prefer ignorance (for that is the meaning of the words) will reject his
theory. After this it is amusing to see him check-mated over and over
again when he comes to these very difficulties.

360 THE CONCLUSION.

know that we are ignorant, we are sure that there are Umits
for the utmost reach of our knowledge, and we know full
well we are, as yet, at a vast distance from those limits,
but if ever we should reach them we know that further
progress will be impossible. We see the fiery sword turn-
ing every way to guard the way of the tree of life. We
shall be able to describe life in the forms in which it is
presented to us, but life itself, its essence, the secret of
reproduction, and the profound and awful mystery of our
creation, we shall never touch.

We believe that infinite wisdom was united to infinite
power to efiiect this first construction and arrangement of all
things ; and as there we come to a light that dazzles us
we turn away, for to press onward against dazzling light
would only produce blindness.

But Mr Darwin in a better mood has himself confessed
the greatness of our common ignorance, which he does not
seem to think will be much diminished even by his new
method. ' It deserves a special notice that the more im-
portant objections relate to questions in which we are con-
fessedly ignorant, nor do we know how ignorant we
ARE ' (499).

These last words of deep import open a wide field for
reflection, and remind us of a sentence uttered by Laplace
in his last moments, 'our ignorance is immense.' The
height to which a superior intellect can ascend only in-
creases the horizon of things that have yet to be discovered,
the more we know the more we shall have to know, and at
the same time it is important to remember, and to some
minds of the utmost consequence never to forget, that there
are many things, which, though it is tempting to examine,

THE CONCLUSION. 361

we never can explain. Unfortunately, however, Mr Dar-
win himself forgets his own wise words, and though he
confesses that our ignorance is deeper than we suppose, he
nevertheless ignores the possibility of an intellect superior
to that of man, to whom, nevertheless, he has attributed no
very intellectual origin. Hence he plainly declares that he
cannot believe in the works of creation.

* Almost every part of every organic being, at least with
animals, is so beautifully related to its complex condition of
life, that it seems as improbable that any part should have
been suddenly produced perfect, as that a complex ma-
chine should have been invented by man in a perfect state'
(46).

This reasoning takes for granted that there is nothing
wiser or more skilful than man ; if man is not able to make
a complex machine perfect without a long time for its pre-
paration, how can the limb of an animal have been sud-
denly made perfect ?

Certainly the atheistic sentiment was never more broadly
stated, though it contains a latent argument against the
very Theory it is intended to support. For it is clear that
the passage has this import, the complex machinery of men
requires a long time for design and construction, therefore
a much more complex and wonderful machine must re-
quire much more time for the design and construction to
bring it to perfection. But as this would be a proposition
opposed to the Theory, Mr Darwin's meaning probably is
tliis, as a human machine cannot be made by design and
skill suddenly, an infinitely more intricate machine can
only be made by long-protracted ignorance and inability.

Now that a dissimilar deduction would be suggested by

362 THE CONCLUSION.

common sense, and assented to even by those who allow
themselves great freedom of thought and language, we may
see in these words of Voltaire :*

* In perceiving by the mind the infinite relations that are
in all things, I suspect a Workman of infinite ability.' And
indeed the questions have ramifications not acknowledged
in the theory, for the argument would, if fully stated, set
in against it from many a quarter besides that of organiza-
tion ; as it is abundantly clear that the earth itself, with its
diurnal revolution, the length of day, its atmosphere ; the
ministrations of the sea, its tides and currents ; the birth
of the clouds, the winds ; the diversities of the seasons, the
range of climates, the balancing of temperature, the parti-
tion of light and solar heat, the main properties of light, its
refraction and reflection ; the laws of electricity, its relation
to air and moisture, the fluidity, density, and elasticity of
the ether, by means of which its vibrations produce light,
the composition of the atmosphere — these and a vast many
other arrangements show plainly enough a preparation and
a design for life, and lead us to expect something answer-
able to such wonderful and complicated dispositions.
When therefore we find life in all its myriad forms of en-
joyment, when we see the senses by elaborate organs
enabled to apprehend and reap the benefit of these pre-
parations, we understand the object of the work, and see
it brought to perfection in the organic beings adapted for
all climates.

If therefore we deny the will and the work of a Creator
in the existence of organized beings, we must deny it in
the cosmical arrangements also : we must carry out the

* * En npperccvant par la pensee dcs rapports infinis dans toutes les
choses, jc soup^onne un ouvrier infiuiment habile.' — Lettre tl Diderot.

THE CONCLUSION, 363

theory of Natural Selection to the e^rth itself, and the
whole machinery of the solar system. We must not mince
the matter, but must be'prepared to affirm that the world
itself is the result of Natural Selection, and that myriads
of globes were exterminated before this actual sphere with
the density of its mass, its size, its peculiar shape, the in-
clination of its axis of rotation to the plane of the ecliptic,
its climates, its distance from the sun, and its rate of
motion in its orbit, were brought to that condition which
constitute it a theatre for the life of animals and plants.

To allow that the earth was arranged as it is, by design,
but to deny that organic life on the earth is the production
of design, would be to allow the greater miracle and deny
the smaller. If Natural Selection be a true theory, it must
embrace the whole heavens. If an artificer and a design
can be discovered anywhere in the universe, they will be
acknowledged everywhere. If a supreme Intelligence
created all worlds, the same power beyond all doubt
created intelligent man who is able to scrutinize all the
phenomena of the celestial orbs. There is no breaking the
chain of this argument ; if there is creation at the begin-
ning, there is creation at the end, and vice versA,

We have just seen that Mr Darwin cannot believe that
the perfect parts of organized beings have been made per-
fect suddenly, we must now contemplate him finding fault
with Nature, and for the purpose of reminding us that
where there are such faults, we can scarcely admit them
to have been produced by an act of creation, ' We ought
not to marvel if all the contrivances in nature be not, as far
as we can judge, absolutely perfect, and if some of them be
ahhorrent to our ideas of fitness. We need not mangel at
the sting of the bee causing the bee's own death, or drones

364 THE CONCLUSION.^

being produced in such vast numbers for one single act,
with the great majority slaughtered by their sterile sisters ;
at the astonishing waste of the pollen of our fir trees ;
at the instinctive hatred of the queen-bee for her own
fertile daughters, at ichneumonidae feeding within the
live bodies of caterpillars, and at such other cases '
(505).

On this quarrel with Nature we observe first, that one of
these instances is simply an example of the system of re-
pression, by check and counter-check, which seems abso-
lutely indispensable in the general plan of the exuberance
of hfe. The Ichneumonidae take possession of the body of
the caterpillar, as recipients for their eggs, that the larvae
when hatched may destroy the caterpillars. The caterpil-
lars, feeding on some vegetable, are not to be left to infinite
reproduction, and therefore this is a check provided to keep
down the excess of their numbers. Of such arrangements
there is no end, and if we have determined that there ought
not to be any destruction in nature, then of course this
particular instance must be abhorrent to our ideas of fitness.
When a leopard destroys an antelope, or a >volf worries an
innocent lamb, or a tiger dines on a wise and virtuous
man, this may be abhorrent to our feelings of fitness — ex-
cept when we perpetrate the like crimes ourselves. When we
sit down to a quarter of lamb, with mint sauce, we never
disturb ourselves about the conscience of the grim butcher
who is making a sanguinary fortune by our cyclopian ap-
petites. It is not at all abhorrent to our ideas of fitness to
do that ourselves, which we hear of with such horror when
perpetrated by a wolf or a lion. If a dog cats a sheep we
have him hanged forthwith ; but if a thousand sheep arc
cut up next morning and sold in the London market, we

THE CONCLUSION, 365

think it a most encouraging circumstance, and a blessed
proof the prosperity of the landed interest.

These considerations may perhaps tend to cool the heart
of our indignation against the Ichneumonidae.

The poor bees, with whom Mr Darwin seems to have a
settled feud, are not quite so guilty as he would have us
think. In the first place Mr Darwin may learn that when
he is next stung by a bee, if he will not fight with the in-
sect, but allow it sufficient time, it will extract its sting
without destroying itself by the operation. It is the
struggUng to escape when struck at that causes it to
pull its sting out by the roots.

Then, again, there is a reason for the great number of
drones over and above the well-known object of their exist-
ence. It is intended that they should contribute to keep
up the warmth of the hive when the bees are at work, as
a high temperature is indispensable for the rearing of the
young. When the harvest of flowers is over, or nearly so,
they are killed off* on a utilitarian principle, to get rid of
the number of useless mouths in a season of short-com-
mons ; just as we, in a close siege, take steps to get rid of
the non-fighting inhabitants, and to lessen as much as pos-
sible the number of consumers. This, perhaps. Is not very
amiable, it is moreover cruel ; but it seems a strange idea
to judge a hive of bees by the Ten Commandments or
Paley's Moral Philosophy.

The queen-bee kills the young queens, or is killed by
one of them in duel ; as monarchy, in the strictest sense of
the word, is indispensable in that polity. One only queen
can be allowed a place in a hive of honey-bees. These jeal-
ousies of the reigning sovereign are certainly not amiable,
but according to our own usages not unnatural, for what

3CG THE CONCLUSION,

is so common as that Eastern princes should slay their
brothers and nephews. The Grand Sultan himself is said,
to this day, to imitate the morals of the queen-bee. Why
did Natural Selection make grand sultans and Eastern
despots ? An Eastern prince commits a crime when he
destroys his brother, but the queen-bee has not a code of
morals and a conscience to direct her in the government of
the hive.

We need not, therefore, say more in answer to these not
veiy profound objections. Mr Darwin, however, need not
disturb 'himself about the imperfections of Nature, for be
may rest assured it is much too perfect for his Theory.*

Having thus traversed this system with hasty steps, we
take a parting view of all that we have gone through, to
recognize in what we have found in it but a modern name
given to very ancient speculations. The Theory of Trans-
mutation diflFers but little from the Epicurean doctrine,
which itself was but a new dress for kindred opinions of
an earlier date. And, indeed, it is impossible it should be
otherwise, for they who deny a first mover and an intelli-
gent cause of unintelligent matter when arranged in organic
living forms, must agree in the great point of all, the fun-
damental negation. Anything that may be added to this
is comparatively unimportant, but everything that has been
added in any age and in any quarter amounts in substance
to the same thing. Deraocritus, Leucippus, Protagoras, and
Epicurus might each have variations of machinery to ac-
count for contrivances in nature on the atheistic principle,
but the machinery of all differs much more in names than

* *La nature a des perfections, pour inontrer qu'eUe est Vimage de Dieu ;
et des defauts, pour inontrer qu'eUe n'en est que Timage.' — Pensves de
Pascal, 87.

TUE CONCLUSION, 3G7

in realities. The slanting atoms of Epicurus acquired the
greatest vogue, and became the most popular tenet with the
opponents of creation ; but the jargon of all those doctors
was much the same — original molecules of matter, rough
or smooth or hooked, placed in different modifications, by
affinities or repulsion — phiHa and neikos — a plastic force of
nature, and whatever else can be imagined of grandiloquent
phrase to conceal profound ignorance.

The modem expedient of the school has been by imagin-
ary spontaneous generation — a power of development — or
Natural Selection ; but all these teachers, from Democritiis
down to Mr Darwin, have one system, that unintelligent
matter can put itself into advantageous and improving
forms of existence, and that matter, left to itself, can exe-
cute perfect works, and at last, by its own operation and
out of its own substance, produce the highest qualities of
intellect, with which avc are acquainted. Mr Darwin's
system seems to be a reflection of that of Strato Pbysicus,*
w ho thought that all Divine Power was placed in Nature,
which contains in itself the causes of generation, increase,
or diminution — but is wholly devoid of sense.

A senseless, self-creating, plastic nature is the sole
agent of Mr Darwin's Theory, which differs in nothing
essential from that of Strato ; though we may be pretty
certain that neither Lamarck nor Mr Darwin has been in-
fluenced by the opinions of Strato, or of any of the ancients.
It is, nevertheless, obvious that by having selected the
very path in which the old philosophers were bewildered,
the Transmutationists find themselves face to face with

♦ *Nec audiendus Strato qui Physicus appellatur,qui omnem vim divinam
in natiird sitam esse censet, quas causas gignendi, augendi, iniDuendique
liubeat, sed careat omni sensu/ — Cicero de Nat. Deor. 1. 13.

368 THE CONCLUSION.

their predecessors at last, and are constrained to adopt
their ideas, and to make use of their language.

The remarks of Aristotle on such speculations, as they
apply to a general principle, are as pertinent for these days
as they were for his own. ' Though all * generation and
dissolution be never so much made out of something,
whether it is one material or more, yet the question still is
by what means this takes place, and what is the cause ?
because that which is the suhject-matter cannot change itself.
I mean this, neither timber nor brass is the cause that
either of them are changed, for timber alone does not make
a bed, nor brass a statue, but there must he something eke
the cause of the change, and to inquire after this is to in-
quire after another principle besides matter, wJUch we
would call that from which matter springs — or the cause of
motion/

On the whole, then, Lucretius, the celebrated exponent
of the Epicurean system, has well expressed, in the interests
of atheism, a pandemic creed for all times, which it will be
found embraces some main points of the School of Trans-
mutation — an absence of design in nature — and plenty of
time and absolute ignorance as the only causes of all the
phenomena and all the forms of life.

'But in what ways the concourse of atoms founded
earth, and heaven, and the deeps of the sea, and the courses
of the sun and moon, I will next declare. For, trulv, not
by design, did the beginnings of things station themselves
each in its right place by keen-sighted intelligence, nor did
they agree which motions each should assume; but be-
cause the first beginnings of things, many in number, and

** oh yap hi) to ye vTroKUfitvov ahrb noUi fXirajidWeiv lavrd. — Aristot.
Met. i. 3.

THE CONCLUSION. 369

in many ways impelled by blows for infinite ages back,
and kept in motion by their own weights, were carried
along and united in all manner of ways, thoroughly to test
every kind of production possible by their mutual com-
binations — therefore it is, that spread abroad through a
vast period of time, after trying unions and motions of
every kind, they at length meet together in those masses,
which, brought together suddenly, become often the rudi-
ments of great things, of earth, and sea, and the heavens,
and the races of living animals/*

One more remark then only remains, that allowing this
school unquestioned freedom for their opinions, we have a
right to protest against their interfering with our senti-
ments, for strange to say some of the Chiefs of the School
have undertaken to read us a lesson of Theology, and to
point out in what way we may still retain some remnants
of the old faith tacked on to the grander creed of Trans-
mutation. This will be best seen in the words of Sir C.
Lyell.

' Dr Asa Grey has pointed out that there is no tendency
in the doctrine of Variation and Natural Selection to

* Sed quibus ille niodis conjectus material
Fund&rit terram et ccelum pontique profunda,
Solis, lunai cursus, ex ordine ponam.
Nam certe neque consilio primordia rerum
Ordine se quseque atque sagaci mente locarunt :
Nee quo8 quseque darent motus pepigcre profecto,
Sed quia roulta modis multis primordia rerum
Ex infinito jam tempore percita plagis,
PoDderibnsque suis consuerunt concita ferri,
Omnimodisque coire, atque omnia pertentare,
Qu8B cunque inter se possent congressa creare :
Propterea fit, uti magnum volgata per sBvum,
Omuigenos ccetus et motus experiundo,
Tandem ea conveniant, quas ut convenire, repente
Magnarum rerum fiant exordia seepe,
Terrai, maris, et ccbH, generisque animantum. — v. 417

370 THE CONCLUSION.

weaken the foundations of Natural Theology, for consist-
ently with the derivative hypothesis of species, we may
hold any of the popular views respecting the manner in
which the changes of the natural world are brought about.
We may tmaffine that events and operations in general go
on in virtue simply of forces communicated at the first,
and without any subsequent interference — or we may hold
that now and then,' and only now and then, there is a
direct interposition of the Deity — or, lastly, we may sup-
pose that all the changes are carried on by the immediate
orderly and constant, however infinitely diversified, action
of the intelligent efficient Cause/ — (Antiquity of Man,
506.)

Thus Professor Asa Grey, seconded by Sir Charles
Lyell, in condescension to our weakness, gives us a choice
of religions, neat varieties of faith, ticketed and docketed,
and tidily stowed in the pigeon-holes of the learned Pro-
fessor's study. However, with this free choice so liberally
allowed us, and with these methods which ' we may imagine'
to keep things decent, it is to be feared we shall not find
one of the religious packets that will suit Mr Darwin's
Theory ; we have by this time become so thoroughly ac-
quainted with his views, and so perfectly understand his
opinion of those who adopt ' the Theory of Creation,' that
we are certain it will be impossible to find any theological
varnish which can be made to adhere to his system.

Whatever our creed may be, we are not ignorant of the
attributes of the Deity proposed for our worship by Sir C.
Lyell and Professor Asa Grey ; an imaginary being of im-
potence and indolence, who having some hundred thousand
million years ago created a sea-weed, retired from his demi-

THE CONCLUSION, 371

urgic labours, and has never been heard of any more. He
has not troubled the world again * with any subsequent
interference/ to use the more dainty phrases of the learned
Professor ; and Mr Darwin farther gives us an insight into
his faculties, as we learn irom him that it would have been
impossible to create the limb of an animal, because it is so
complex and beautiful a specimen of organization. This
god of sea-weeds, therefore, who is less clever and eflScient
than the sea-weed which he made (for the sea-weed has
done that which the maker of the sea-weed could not ac-
complish), may abide in the distance where these learned
gentlemen have placed him. Those who feel inclined may
worship that deity, but we certainly shall not be of the
number.

In the mean while those who join the School of Trans-
mutation should make up their minds to adopt the system
pure. Let not their courage ooze out at their finger-ends,
when they find themselves confronted with a majority who
may entertain different sentimepts ; but if they conscien-
tiously believe these things let them profess them, and take
the consequences, whatever they may be. The world will
not be deceived by a masquerade of dissimulation, nor will
they respect those who adopt it. Transmutation can have
no creed. That is certain, and all the quibbles in the world
will not alter this fact.

At the same time we would assert the right of all to pro-
fess their opinions, when not urged in a spirit of offence
and insult ; and we should vehemently deprecate the ap-
plication of popular clamour and vulgar intolerance to cry
down any opinions which we ourselves do not approve. Let
the truth be canvassed freely ; we have no misgivings re-

372 THE CONCLUSION.

garding its ultimate victory, nor have we the least fear of
its succumbiug ultimately to popular names, whatever tem-
porary success those names may impart to a cause which
we are persuaded is based on false principles.

Mr Darwin has been fortunate in the conjuncture in
which his book is offered to the public attention, as it is an
era of change, and, perhaps, of not far distant revolution.
In such a period, a work of the pecuhar tendencies which
are conspicuous in * The Origin of Species ' is sure to be
acceptable, as it will be recognized as a valuable coadjutor
for that thorough license of speculation which such an era
always demands. In the mean while it is said that the success
has been great, and that the disciples are numerous, so that
Mr Darwin need not now confine his hopes of acceptance
to * a few* naturahsts, endowed with much flexibihty of
mind,' or look with confidence only Ho young and rising na-
turalists.' The flexible naturalists and the juvenile philoso-
phers have indeed joined his ranks, and others, too, whose
character and calling might have been considered a safe-
guard against such a movement. On the whole, however,
this is such an event as need not create surprise, as it is
evident that fashionable opinions of the day, novelty, and
exaggeration, have more general influence at present than
sober thought, deep-based convictions, and patient inquiry.
AVe are in an age of exaggeration, both in politics, literature,
and science. We are sowing the wuid, and we must reap

• * A few naturalists, endowed with much flexibiUty of mind, and who
have already began to doubt on the inmiutability of species, may be indu-
enced by this volume ; but I look with confidence to the future, to young
and rising naturalists' (516). It is to be hoped that the flexibility of tht-se
naturalists does not extend to their bodies also, as in that case we might,
according to the Theory, expect to see them changed into strange animals
— ceutaurs or pterodactyles, or some other alarming creatures.

THE CONCLUSION. 373

the whirlwind. After a season of unsettlement, and its
inevitable consequences, there will be a reaction in the right
direction, and it will be generally felt and acknowledged
that all excess of sentiment is as much to be deprecated as
excess of action.

FINIS,

APPENDIX A.

The direct tendency of the phjrsiological system which has heen ex-
amined in the preceding pages is, for the most part, left by its authon at
an inference ; the principles of the School are laid down, bat the ooroUaries
arc lefl to be deduced by those who accept the principles.

An energetic labourer in this School, Dr Carl Vogt, Professor of Katartl
History in the University of Geneva, in his * Lectures on Mao, his placs
in Creation, and in the History of the E^rth/ has stated this dearij
enough. Thus does he expound the doctrine of the School : —

* Thoro can be no doubt Mr Darwin^s Theory ignores a personal Creator,
and hin direct interference in the transformation and creation of Species,
there being no sphere of action for such a Being. Given the first starting-
point — the first organism, all existing organisms are subsequently, by Ns-
tural Selection, developed from it in a continuous manner through all
geological periods, by the simple laws of transmission. Every man is
neither a dlHtinct creature, formed in a special manner, and differently
from ull other animals, nor provided with a special soul, and endowed
with a divine breath of life. He is only the highest product of a pro-
gressive Natural Selection, and descends from the Simious group^standing
next to man.

' Darwin, it must be stated, has nowhere in his work touched upon these
sequences, so that, from the richness of materials, and the logical treat-
ment of the leading idea, the work met at first with a very favourable re-
ception in England, — a country so much attached to Biblical traditiona
lUit when it was perceived upon what base the Theory rests, the storm
broke forth from all quarters of the compass; — nor has the agitation as yet
buhsided. But we must not be disconcerted by attacks of this kind.*

Dr Vogt, who accepts the theory of Mr Darwin as far as it is in opposi-
tion with a belief in a Creator, has his own particular views, which do not
ulwavs accord with the dictations of the great Coryphaeus, but he con-
cludes his Lectures with the following passage : —

* The lamentation over the destruction of all faith, morality, and virtue,
the woeful cry about the endangered existence of society, is by this time
hoard in the French tongue. The pulpits of the orthodox churches, the
platforms of the missions, the chairs of the consistories, resound with the
pretended attacks on the foundations of human existence made by Mate-
rialism and Darwinism.

APPENDIX A, 375

' Let them rage I They require the fear of punishment — the hope of
reward in a dreamt-of-beyond, to keep in the right path ; for us suffices
the consciousness of being men amongst men, and the acknowledgment of
their equal rights. We have no other hope than that of receiving the
acknowledgments of our fellow men ; no other fear than that of seeing our
human dignity violated — a dignity we value the more since it has been
conquered with the greatest labours by us and our ancestors, down to the
APE ' (469).

This sensitiveness for the dignity of humanity, which the learned Pro-
fessor traces directly to the ape, here distinctly named as the first authro-
poidal ancestor of man, is a curious phenomenon. It is as a family feeling,
and as such may claim our forbearance ; for if some are tremblingly alive
to the honour of their Anglo-Saxon descent, and others to their Norman
origin, why should these philosophers be debarred the satisfaction of trac-
ing their families up to orang-outangs and apes with blue tails? There
may be motives of private consciousness prompting them to contend for
this genealogy with which we would not interfere.

A considerable portion of Professor Vogt's lectures is dedicated to the
proof of the connection between man and the ape, and yet there are some
strange admissions in the progress of this inquiry, some of which ought to
be the groundwork of deductions but little according with the learned
Professor's theory.

'This organ (the foot of the ape — chimpanzee), compared with the
human foot, is a real hand — the thumbs thicker and larger than in the an-
terior hand ; but still it is a hand, with a flat lower surface, well -separated,
movable, drawn-out fingers, with opposable thumb, and a long, furrowed
palm. On comparing a sketch of this hand with that of a human foot, we
perceive that Burmeister was right in designating the foot the specific cha-
racter of humanity ' (155).

Now this is yielding a much-contested point, and acceding to the defi-
nition that the ape is a quadrumanous animal ; thus separating the ape
altogether from man.

However, the conclusion of the whole matter is thus : — * If, in diflferent
regions of the globe, anthropoid apes may issue from different stocks, we
cannot see why these different stocks should be denied the further develop-
ment into the human type, and that only one stock should possess the pri-
vilege ; in short, we cannot see why the American races of man may not
be derived from American apes, Negroes from African apes, or Negritos
from Asiatic apes' (466).

As Professor Vogt advocates a plurality of races of man, he, of course,
derives these races from a plurality of apes ; but he has not told us from
which of the four-handed worthies of the forest the European race of man
is sprung ; so that, in contending for ' human dignity,' lest by some ca-
lumny it should be ' violated,* we are at a loss to know which of the
Simian tribe claims our particular respect, as the source from which we
have derived our position in society.

Professor Vogt, whose system differs in many points from that of Mr
Darwin, is in complete opposition to it on the origin of different organic
beings, for where Mr Darwin traces them all to one primal form, Professor

376 APPENDIX A.

Vogt offers cogent reasons for the impossibility of this plan : — * From the
Vertebrata to the Invertebrata,* says he, ' I can find no guide, nor bave I
any idea by what adaptation or intermixture intermediate forms can arise,
which may lead from the Mollusca and Articnlata to the Vertebrata. It
is, moreover, well known that the lowest Vertebrate we are acquainted vith,
the Amphioxus Lanceolatus, is, as regards the development of all its or-
gans, so far behind that of the higher Mollusca and Articulata, that the
transition from one of these better- developed types into that of this Verte-
brate would include a series of retrogressions from which, nevertheless, u
said (by Darwin) to have issued the beginning of a structure capable of
the highest development. In other words, I see here the Vertebrate type,
with man as its highest development, commencing with an animal which,
as regards the perfection of its organs, is excelled by most worms, and
much more so by the Mollusca and Articulata, which, in some instances,
attain the highest development of which the structural plan of the Articn-
lata is capable. / should thus find mystlf face to face uyith an insokbU
enigma^ if I were not permitted to recur to the conclusion I have arrived
at, namely, the assumption of an original difference in the primary germt
from which the animal kingdom has been developed * (460).

This reasoning is both intelligible and convincing ; but if it drives the
learned Professor to * assume* that there were various primary germs, from
which the various divisions of the animal kingdom must have sprung, it
amounts to the supposition of an original plan, and to the acknowledg-
ment that there existed primary germs differently constituted for different
objects, to say nothing of the origin of these germs, of which this system
gives no account. Professor Vogt thus escapes indeed from the enormoas
absurdity of retrogressive formations, adopted by Darwin and Lyell, — an
absurdity which supposes that certain animals have gone backwards
through old forms in order to start better in a new ; but he does not escape
from the necessity of acknowledging a design of Creation, by the plan
which he proposes.

It is, however, curious to hear the Professor energetically protest against
the one primordial germ. * Not only,' says he, * do organisms that stand
in an intermediate position between animals and plants consist of different
kinds of cells ; not only are those cells developed in a different mode, so
that we are able to distinguish different species of these organisms ; but
also those egg-cells from which the more compound organisms are de-
veloped, show, from the beginning^ a fundamental difference^ both of form
and subsequent development. The attempt, therefore, to reduce the whole
organic world to one fundamental form, so to speak — one primordial
cell, from which all organisms have been developed in different directions,
is as futile as the assumption of those Naturalists who consider that the
whole organic creation has been developed from an elementary plastic
matter — the so-called primordial slime ' (445).

From whence then came the varied germs of Professor Vogt's theory ?
From the soil I This we are told distinctly ; but we are not told how the
soil produced them.

* If it be difficult to conceive how the great diversity of organic types
could have been developed from a common soil it can, on the other hand.

APPENDIX A. 377

not be denied that an intrinsic difference in the constitution of this soil
may have given rise to the diversity of the types springing from it * (446).
Thas, then, after all we come back to the old thing, to the Mother f^rth
of Lacretins, and of the first speculators in the mystery of Creation, when
science had no existence, and when the imagination undertook to settle
that which experiment, analysis, and induction can alone establish.

THE LEPORIDES.

Some time ago there was a good deal of talk about the LeporideSy or
crosses between hares and rabbits, that were alleged to be raised in consi-
derable quantities by an enterprising Frenchman. Dr Pigeaux, writing
in the Bulletin de la Socicte Imperiale Zoologique d*Acclimation, observes,
• To sum up, therefore, we would affirm that Leporidea exist, undoubtedly,
under both forms, with predominance of the hare or the rabbit ; Imt as a
Species^ or even as a Variety^ we cannot admit thenij since, like all other
crosses, they have only an accidental productiveness.* He adds that their
flesh has neither the whiteness of the rabbit nor the flavour of the hare. —
From the Intellectual Observer, August, 1867.

APPKSDIX BL

'hstm measf ar? rriatz ^StevwA 1^ §mum as^tker wriier of the
T J-juauug aearm. Saumi haf imttzmtoi ia» •f^anras. in a book of wiiidi the
tadx m ' Tbe •M^Ta^oncaL l*xgs:^»aatm cf Hawwuli^. bj Andrew M mraj.*
csrefos^ laie iat»nrifCieal poet, it a T-wlmaiAe cootiilMtioii to
SImscncjsA V Lrim^M smt L hy maelal auifiato ahow tbe

plan. Uiifi»r-
to fiMSta^ bat IbUov.
a TWocy of tbe Ori^ of
vitb tbat of MrDarwia
aa^y m tbe pvBKs^ «f ecdviis^ fnaTiiM, — m tbe aKide of exdoaoa

4{» wic agree.
* Ib aooM rapeetiL' mij% tbe a«ber,'I bave eone Bearer to Mr Dar-
ia's Tievi^ bee ia oCbcrf I Kiil differ from bioi. It is not, bowerer, hj
of oc^oKtioB ihil I ofier mj Tiew : mine are ratber of the iiatare of
a ae^^ lo Lis^ or as ait€f=.p( to vork out tbe truth bj the light of htf
prrrF>r» laiw^n,' H*^ hi>>rm5 «s that * species are not modelled or pro-
doced br iD4*p<od?G^t creaDoa, bat that wmder tke operaticm cf a getieral
Iwr the germs of orzaniazif produce d^v ibrms dtf^remi from ikanseiru,
when particolar circtnnstaiMres call the lav into action.'

He ioelinee to * the ioToIatioo Theorj of RDonet and Priestly, that all
the germs of f^ore plants, organical hoodies of all kioda, aod the repro-
daciUe parts of them, are reallv oontained in the first germ. This appears
to me to faroish a sausfact<>rT explanatioo of the homologies io stroctare,
aod the relation jfhip« between ^>ecie«, vhich are everywhere apparent
throQgh the organized world.'

This system of Bonnet, long ago e^rploded on the continent, and
thoronglily decrit by the French physiologists, among whom it first made
itH appearance, is by them called the system of * emboitement,^ from the re-
semblance it offers of a series of boxes enclosing one another. For as all
sf>ecies have sprung from germs, there must have been germs within
germs for future transfonnations to an unlimited extent ; and for aught
we knoA" to the contrary, as we spring fmm germs contained within ape«,
there may l>e genns within us for the development of other animals, u
Moon AH our present * inertia' shall change to a more active state. In tbif
way the monkey himself sprung from some antecedent germ in some
other animal, the horse from the genn within an aas or a ^u<igga, and iO
of all the equine germs.

APPENDIX B. 379

' If io the concanrence of particular circumstances a law comes into
action effecting cm alteration in the germ which is about to be developed, it
follows that in those points where the law has not affected the germ, it
should have the same form as the parent ; and on those points where it
has affected the germ, it must produce the alteration, not by a creation of
new parts, but by an alteration of those already existing * (5).

After stating that he does not dispute * Mr Darwin*s existence of the
straggle of life, and that that influence cleared away the weakly and left
the strongly endowed,* Mr Murray adds, 'I have not succeeded in
bringing my mind to accept the possibility of a new species being
eliminated (sic) out of any amount of gradual variation, hybridization, or
straggle for life, taken either singly or in continuation.*

Mr Murray informs us that in the development of a germ into a new
fonn, * ifjins were wanted where legs were before, they obtained not by the
creation of a new organ, but by alteration of the parts of the leg, hence
the existence of homologies between them.*

If fins were wanted ! thus then it would appear that some terrestrial
animal had within itself the germ of a future fish, that in process of time
the germ awoke, and recognized its wants, and that to gratify its wishes,
the leg which it had inherited from its parent * by the operation of a ge-
neral law,* turned into a fin by the process of *■ alteration,* other parts we
presume turning into a tail, gills, &c.

Here, of course, Mr Murray agrees with Mr Darwin that the animal
changed, but neither of these profound expositors of Nature*s secrets give
us any information as to the condition of the animal whilst the change
was going on. Half a fin and half a leg would not suit either land or
water ; it would only verify the old saying, * neither fish, nor flesh, nor
good red herring.*

If we inquire of the first movement of the enclosed germ, and how it
comes at last, after ages of contented quiescence, to show an inclination to
change — or if we ask how in this system the stability of Nature is not
continually in a state of jeopardy, we have this answer : * 1 imagine that
the law which secures the stability of species is inertia — so long as they
are not meddled with they stand still ; but subject them to change, whether
it comes to them, or they go to it — give them an impulse of any kind,
and variation commences. Some receive the impulse more easily than
others. What may be felt by one may not be felt by another. ConsH-
tutions differ (I), hence the greater range of some species than others ; bat
wherever the change makes itself felt, there I apprehend modification
commences.*

The result of this exposition then amounts to this, that animals have no
disposition to change, and that if they are let alone they remain as they
were. The germ within keeps quiet till it is put into circumstances to
desire a change. The proposition that ' if the germ is subjected to change
variation will commence,* would scarcely be contested, as little as that
* when change makes itself felt modification will commence.* These pro-
found remarks will pass undisputed, but the difficulty is in subjecting the
germ to change, and in making the change felt. If things change, they
do change ; no doubt of that, but the effecting the mutation is the thing to

380 APPENDIX B,

be proved. If the sky were to fall we should catch larks. These irs are
the cloud-pillars of many a beautiful fabric of the imagination, but when
the rays of truth penetrate them they melt away into aery dreams.

It is a singular part of this Theory that changes take place not in
individuals only, but in masses of organized beings, many thousands of
the same species changing at the same time. * One essential element in
my Theory is that the change is effected through the medium of not
single individuals, but of a multitude of individuals ; a whole nation of
the same species' (8).

As, then, we are informed that *man cannot be regarded as more
widely separated from the apes than the different families of them from
each other * (73), which amounts to this, that man is a species of the ape
genus, and as no species is created, we must understand that the germ of
tb^ human species began to break through its inertia which it had main-
tained within the ape for ages, and to make a stir for a new form — ^the
human. This stir was not in a solitary individual, not in Sir C. LyelVs
one superior ape, but in a whole nation of apes at once, and thus some
thousands of men and women were contemporaneously * developed ' out of
some thousands of male and female apes.

Mr Murray is careful to inform us that * the process of change is o6n'-
ously gradual and imperceptible^ and extends over a greater space of time
than we have had the opportunity of observing* (8), and of this there can
be no doubt.

How far this prudent remark is in keeping with the following statement
the reader must judge :

* The adaptation of species to the conditions in which they arc to pass
their lives, as of tree kangaroos to a life in trees, is a phenomenon which
does not come within the scope of this inquiry. I offer no opinion here
upon the subject. Only of one thing I may say I feel as sure as I can
be of anything which I do not know, and that is, that it is not by the
process supposed by Mr Darwin, namely, by Nature trying an infinity of
experiments, and rejecting them till she hit upon the right one. Nature
never makes chips. When the occasion for a tree kangaroo arose we may he
sure that the tree kangaroo appeared perfect at the first attempt. There was
no failure of myriads of kangaroos in other directions created or developed
but to die, until by chance one in this direction appeared. This I ftd^
but I cannot prove it. It is only my feeling, and therefore of no use to
any one but myself (13).

Mr Murray must excuse us. This * feeling' is of very great use to ns
all, — it is the feeling of common sense breaking down the barriers of dog-
matism and paradox ; it is the force of that great gift bestowed on us all,
plain reason, vindicating its liberty and casting off the trammels of
magisterial hypothesis ; and forcing a man to acknowledge, that which it
is most difhcult to disbelieve even for a short time, that a superior power
created animals perfect at once, for the part that was chalked out for them
in the domain of creation.

Mr Murray wishes to be in the mode, and to build up an atheistic
system, but common sense breaks out in this passage, and sweeps away

APPENDIX B. 381

not only Mr Darwin's laborious extravagances but Mr Murray's germs,
and imaginary laws of nature, and fabulous * developments.*

With Mr Murray's reasons for not assenting to Mr Darwin's machinery
of change, as expressed in the following words, we shall all be disposed
to agree.

* What impressed me more than anything else was the absence of any
transitional form or geological evidence in support of this idea. I argued
that if such transition really existed, it ought to have been seen or to have
left traces of its having been, but no form has as yet been discovered
among fossil remains, which can be fairly adduced, as showing a grada-
tion of form passing, during the course of time, from one species to an-
other,' &c., &c. (5).

Thus, then, even the Transmutationists hurl the rocks against Mr Dar-
win, and overwhelm him with the mountains. There is intestine war
amongst the Giants themselves. They would scale the heavens, but they
cannot agree amongst themselves. The labourers in this great Babel have
different languages and cannot act in harmony. Their tongues have been
confounded. There is division in the camp, and with division hopeless
and irremediable discomfiture. Nevertheless, though each of these teach-
ers of the School of Transmutation has his own Theory, and though no
two of them agree, yet in one particular there is harmony amongst them, in
the usage of a vague language for the furtherance of thei^ Theories, an
unsubstantial dialect, with which it is impossible to grapple.

The favourite phrase with the School, in which indeed some of them
mask their whole Theory, is 'development;' and of this wo have said
more in another page. In Mr Murray's system it is indeed everything.
When he wants to produce a new animal out of a dormant germ, the
germ has been * developed.' He tells us with much gravity that the
whales of the arctic and antarctic species were ^ developed' in the Meiocene
period (212).

The developing of a whale must have been no trifling matter, and we
ought to hear something of the process, as from what it was developed,
and by what particular mode. But this is left unexplained, and 'de-
velopment ' is made to act as a sort of thimble-rig of physiological con-
jurers, and to produce the required change under the hat of mystery. A
herring, perhaps, is put under the hat — presto ! — the hat is removed, and
lo ! a whale !

The whale, indeed, seems to be the great bait to catch the philosophers
of this School. We know its success in Mr Darwin's case, and its at-
tractions have been irresistible for Mr Murray.^ But seriously, all this

• That this is a process scrioosly contemplated by the aathor we see in the follow-
ing passage, which, if professedly written to ridicule the Transmutatioiiists, might be
thought too broad a caricature : —

' 1 he origin of marine animals by descent, in other words, their derivation orpa-
rentage, has always appeared to me one of the most difficult problems to solre. How
a terrestrial animal could ever give birth to a seal or a whale— how it could ever nurse
or feed it, naturally makes us pause and wonder. The very first and most essential
qualification of a common medium in which to live seems wanting ; when we come,

382 APPENDIX B.

affords a most instnictive lesson to as, that when learned physiologists
forsake the legitimate path of facts, to indulge in the parsuit of hypothesis,
they fall into mistakes palpable even to the illiterate. Carious, indeed, it
is to observe that these interpreters of nature, whose sceptical logic will
not admit the idea of a Creator, can, with such perfect self-complacency,
indulge in a language which represents no recognized fact, and expresses
nothing but a coinage of tlie imagination to conceal unacknowledged
ignorance.

* Development — germs — the operation of a general law — Natural Se-
lection,* &c., &a, &c. Assertions like these, resting on no proof^ and io-
capable of being proved, are quietly assumed as the solid materials for
their hypothesis. They argue on thera as if they were realities, and seem
to persuade themselves that they have by their instrumentality produced
a new system, which is to be a substitute for the received opinions and
firm belief of all the common sense of mankind ; and thus, to use the
caustic language of Dr Johnson, Uhese persons are weary of the old-
foshioned practice of milking the cow, and so they go to milk the ball/

however, to think of the steps and processes bj which this eretttum (sic) maj hsn
been effected, we find ourselves wholly at sea without compass or rudder. We do not
even know at which end to commence oar speculation. Were the aquatic animffU de-
scended from t^ terrestrial or the terrestrial from the aquatic ? altnongh the proba-
bilities seem in mvonr of the former, there is no fact known which shots oat the pof-
sibility of the seals having been in existence before the camivora. The laUer is ths
most natural theory, because it seems to stand to reason that the exceptional form
should be derived from the normal rather than the reverse ; although if pressed for t
reason why one should be considered more normal than the other, I must candidly
confess that I have none to give, except the veiy lame one that now the one is more
numerous than the other* (123).

After some more musings on this deep question, the learned author inclines to think
that the bear was the lineal ancestor of the seal (125^. 'What amphibious camivora
have we then of bulk approaching to the seal ? none out the bear.'

So bulk carries it, and the bear produced a germ which produced a seaL

If we were students of this sort of genealogy, we shoula be disposed to conjecture
that the seal produced the bear, for this simple reason, that the polar bear mostly feeds
on seals, and indeed could not exist without them. The food necessary for its existence
must have preceded its existence, and thus it will come to pass that the bear eats his
ancestors.

The reader will remember that in Mr Darwin's system the bear is progenitor of the
whale ; so that altogether bears and whales seem destined to be pierret tTaekoppewmU
for the learned Professors of the School of Transmutation.

APPENDIX C.

ProftwoT G&ppert on the Darwinian Theory,

In the Augast month of the Journal of Botany is an interesting paper
by Professor H. R. (^oppert, translated from the Nova Acta of the Impe-
rial German Academy Naturae Curiosoruro.

The title of this essay is * On Aphyllostachys, a new genus of fossil
plants of the Calamites group, and on the relation of the Fossil Flora to
Darwin*s Theory of Transmutation.'

The learned Professor first notices Dr Hooker, who, in his * Tasmanian
Flora,* has adopted the Theory of the Transmutationists. Nevertheless, Dr
Hooker, it seems, does not find much to encourage him in his floral
■tudieti. ' He holds that, regarded from the classificatory point of view,
the geological history of plants is not so favourable to the Theory of pro-
gressive development as that of animals, because the earlieA ascertained
types are of such large and complex organization, and because there are
no known fossil plants which can certainly assume to belong to a non-
existing class, or even family, and none that are ascertained to be inter-
mediate in afiiuity between recent classes and families.*

Dr Hooker also acknowledges the absence of genuine monocotyledonous
plants in the ancient flora, and all this from an advocate is a serious ad-
mission.

Professor Goppert holds that * our knowledge of fossil plants is amply
sufiScient to supply decided proofs * that there are no genetic relations in
the geological history of plants such as the Transmutationists would
require. He urges also that a high importance must be accorded to those
species of plants, and to the more numerous animals, which have passed
from the Tertiary period to our own time, and still more to those which
have existed unaltered through three periods, as the Neuropteris Lostici,
which ranges from the lower coal formation, through the upper to the
Permian. ^If we add to this,* says the Professor, Hhe numerous families
and genera which have remained unaltered since their first appearance,
so that the same characters can be used for the definition of the diflerent
species that occur in all the geological periods, it is difficult to perceive
where the mutations are to be founds which the diflerent species are said to
have undergone.*

The Professor then urges * that in the very earliest times of the land
Flora certain groups of plants, for instance, the Ferns, appear in a degree
of perfection, previous to the gradual development of which an enormously
long range of time, and numberless antetypes (which, however, are en-
tirely wanting) would be required in the Darwinian Theory.* Besides
this some groups become extinct at very early geological periods, leaving

384 APPENDIX C.

to subsequent periods only faint remnants or indications of their fonner
degree of perfection.

A few orders and families attain, on their first appearance, a high de-
gree of development, and retain this down to the present time ; this ap-
plies to the oldest family, the AlgSQ. Other orders, as, for instance, the
Coniferae, which began with tlie AbietinesQ, as early as the Palseozoic pe-
riod appeared in such diversity of form, and high internal structure, at «
no subsequent period.

The CycadesB also, of the Permian formation, attained an organism of
a higher stage of development than is observed in any Cycad before or
since that time.

Quite isolated are the Sigillarise, and even without any further evidence
they are quite sufficient, says the Professor, to support the dictum that
certain forms were created only once, in certain geological periods, with-
out the creative power being solicitous, as Darwin everywhere assumes,
to ensure their further development.

He then observes that the vegetation of our globe commenced with
Algae, ^ but one would make a mistake in supposifig that the lowest forms
appeared first and isolated.' This is by no means the case, for with the
lowest unicellular Algae, the higher Florideae co-existed, and even a
Callithamnion. '

The Fungi are of a lower grade than the Algae, and we meet with them
first on Ferns of the coal period. The other cellular plants are entirely
wanting in Palaeozoic strata, they make their appearance only in the Ter-
tiary period, and perhaps they have not existed earlier.

* In a strict succession, according to the Theory of Progressive De-
velopment, there is here a serious break-down.*

All the lower stages of the vegetable kingdom, cellular plants, higher
Cryptogams, Monocotyledons, and even Gynosperms, already existed in tlie
Palaeozoic period, but the appearance of genuine Dicotyledons has still
to be discovered. In the Cretaceous formation, however, genuine leaf-
Dicotyledons appear, and there is from that time a constantly increasing
approximation towards the Flora of the present time ; and this proceeds,
until, in the Tertiary period, the balance is turned, and the living forms
predominate.

* If, as I believe, nothing can be said against the correctness of these
views — based as they are, not upon conjecture or mere examination of ex-
ternal appearances (most deceptive in fossil plants), but upon intemal
structural differences — one is at a loss to comprehend how all these very
different forms can have descended in a direct line from each other, and,
as a necessary consequence of such a theory, from one primordial form ;
or how they can have been developed into the present diversified form of
life by undergoing a constant mutation of hereditary peculiarities, by in-
dividual variations, by struggles for existence, and by Natural Selection—
the principal dogmas of the Darwinian Theory.

' Under these circumstances, it will be granted that the doctrine of
Transmutation receives no more support from the fossil flora, than it does
(as Heuss has shown most convincingly) from the fossil fauna.*

APPENDIX D.

MIMICRY IN NATURE.

From the AtlieiuBum,

* Oxford, Dec. 4, 1866.

* In every division of animated nature, even of comparatively limited
extent, are to be found species which, although agreeing in all their chief
structural characters with the types of such groups, exhibit in their ge-
neral form and appearance so great a resemblance to the members of
some other group, that by ordinary observers they are at once regarded
as belonging to the latter, and not to their own legitimate group. Thus,
an eel resembles a snake more than a fish, a cuckoo resembles a hawk,
a humming-bird hawk-moth so nearly resembles a humming-bird that
a person who had seen the Trochilidad in their American haunts could
not be brought to believe that one of the moths which he happened
to have noticed in Oxfordshire was an insect. This kind of external
resemblance has been tehned Analogy, and was greatly used by M^Leay
and Swainson in the development of their respective " Systems of Nature.**
More recently this resemblance has been termed ^Mimicry,** and some
very remarkable instances of it have been described and figured by Mr
Bates, occurring in certain species of butterflies which frequent the banks
of the river Amazon and other parts of South America in vast numbers,
both of species and individuals, forming a separate family, tlie Heli-
coniidsB, distinguished by their very peculiar elongated wings, as well as
by their distinct styles of colouring. These butterflies are, it appears, ac-
companied in their flight by certain other species of butterflies, which so
closely resemble them in general form and colour as to be scarcely dis-
tinguishable from them, although belonging to a totally diflerent family,
the Pieridae, of which our common white butterfly, Pieiis brassica, is the
type. According to Mr Bates, the Heliconians emit a disagreeable scent,
which renders them distasteful to insectivorous birds, and so preserves
them in the ** battle of life ;** and he moreover assumes that their mimics, .
the Pieridans, have, by a long process of development from the old typical
white, broad-winged form of their own family, attained that of the well-to-
do Heliconians, and have thereby been enabled to improve their condition
and maintain their existence in nature.

386 APPENDIX D,

^ It may, I think, fairly be doabted whether this system of mimicry has
been beneficial to these Pieridan batterflies, and that their evolotion from
white progenitors is in the highest degree problematical, — Ist, Because
the mimicking species barely exist, much less flourish, in the cooDtr)*
where the Heliconiidsb abound, " not more than one in a thousand '' iodi-
viduals having been found by Mr Bates. 2nd, Because there still occur
numerous species of white Pieridse in the country of the HeliconiidaB in a
flourishing condition. 3rd, Because there are numerous other groups and
species of butterflies in Brazil, equally subject to the attacks of birdi with
the Pieridce, which have never attempted to assume the forms of the
dominant group, Heliconiidae. 4th, Because there are numeroas in-
stances of mimicry between the different species of Hcliconiidse them-
selves, which, therefore, needed not the inducement to mimicry- attriboteil
to the Pieridae. 5th, Because there are certain species of Pieridae of which
only one sex mimics the HeliconiidsB. It would require a wide stretch of
imagination to suppose that Natural ■ Selection could have led to the
assumption of such mimicry by the individuals of only one of the sexes of
a species. {Pcspilio Ceneus carries this mimicry still further, the male re-
sembling Danais Echeria^ and the female Daaais Chryslppus,) 6tb, Be-
cause the Theory assumes that the Heliconiidae existed before the attempt
at mimicry commenced on the part of the Pieridae, whereas Mr Bates'g
statements would lead to the inference that the Heliconiida} are so un-
stable a group that the manufacture of species is still going on amongst
them. 7th, Because, according to the doctrine of chances, it is in the
highest degree improbable that a casual variation of any given species of
Pieridae should by constant modification, assisted by hereditary descent,
gradually assume the form, and colours, and markings of another species,
especiall}' of so remarkable a type as the Heliconiidse. But for an entire
group to be simultaneously engaged in sucli a process, each species tcini-
ing towards distinct and equally peculiar species,. would, by a logician, l>«
pronounced impossible. The admission that the God of Nature createti
these species in their present mimetic condition for some wise, but hid-
den, purpose, disposes of all difliculty.

J. 0. WestW(>:>p.'

APPENDIX E.

Bremser, on the Revolutions of Life on the Globe : — *I believe as little
that the cedar of Lebanon was originally moss or lichen, as that the ele-
phant owes his origin to an oyster or zoophyte, even had he passed
through a thousand gradations ; and still less do I allow that man was
originally a fish, or an animal covered with scales, as some modem
naturalists (Lamarck) endeavour to make it appear. If things had pro-
ceeded in this manner, then similar progressive metamorphoses, or rather
gradual formation of new beings, and others more and more perfect,
whether among plants or animals, would be taking place daily under our
observation. But to speak only of man : nothing proves that there is
any progress in his physical and moral organization, to indicate an ul-
terior development. He remains always the same, such as he was thou-
sands of years since. The influence which government, education, and
soil have upon some nations cannot be taken into consideration ; there
existed in the most remote times just what we see in the present day —
men endowed with elevated intellect, and men of narrow capacities.

'The intestinal worms, which are engendered daily under our own
notice, furnish a proof adverse to such a progressive transformation of
animals of an inferior degree to those of a higher class. In fact, if that
took place, the least perfect worms would always be the first formed, and
the most perfect would be developed afterwards ; but no observation war-
rants us in believing that ascaridsd, for instance, draw their origin from
a hydatide or taenia. In this hypothesis it is presumed, as may be seen,
that the greatest perfection would consist in the greatest and most varied
composition, and that imperfection would be in direct relation to sim-
plicity. What I have just said would happen, however, even upon the
contrary supposition.' — Quoted in the Notes on Bcrtrand's Revolution of
the Globe. 1835.

.ions cuiLns and sox, riiiNTER?.

The borrower must relimi this item on or before
the last date stamped below. If another user
places a recall for this item, the borrower will
be notified of the need for an earlier return.

Non-receipl of overdue notices does not exempt
the borrower from overdue fines.

Harvard College Widener Library
Cambridge, MA 02138 617-495-2413

Thank you for helping lo preserve
hbrary collections at Harvard.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The Darwinian Theory of the Transmutation of Species"

See other formats